Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, those of us who have been around this town for a while know how much we and this government depend on our civil servants to get the really tough jobs done, to bring ideas to reality, and sometimes to even tell us when our ideas need some adjusting, shall we say. These people don't get much praise, at least not nearly enough. One of the classic examples of a dedicated civil servant, Ray Kammer, is about to retire from government service after 31 years. Ray retires on December 29 as Director of the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology, where he spent the vast majority of his career. I have known Ray for a good portion of that time, both from his work at NIST and from the time he spent at the Department's headquarters and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. In the late 1980's, the country called upon NIST, which used to be known as the National Bureau of Standards, to help industry rally and regain its competitiveness. It was a time when we first began facing severe competition from overseas. The Bureau's labs had a long-standing reputation for excellence, impartiality, and for working cooperatively with industry. Ray helped us to expand that mission by establishing NIST and adding the Advanced Technology Program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and the Baldrige National Quality Program. It wasn't easy, but we got it done. Ten years later--with Ray's help-- those programs have been tremendously beneficial for this country. While at NOAA and during his time as Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration at the Commerce Department, Ray helped to stabilize several critical programs that needed the steady hand of an experienced manager. He was the Department's fireman of sorts, always being called on to help put out this fire, put out that fire, and to keep another one from breaking out. Even now, Ray is helping us take a look at how to improve NOAA's fisheries service. I am sorry that we are losing Ray, especially at a time when NIST is just about to begin its centennial year and the agency will be getting a lot more attention and credit for all of the good work that its staff has done. I want to wish him my very best. I know that I am joined by others in this body who have had the pleasure of working with this dedicated public servant, Ray Kammer.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join you in supporting the statements made by the Senator from Montana. As managers of the Commerce, Justice, State bill, you and I have the responsibility and expectation of providing agencies under our jurisdiction with congressional input and guidance. On an issue of this great importance--transferring the a-root server to ICANN--it is critical we carefully look at the implications a decision like this would have.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the chairman yield to me on this issue?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Collins, for her kind remarks regarding this subcommittee's work on the FY '01 Commerce, Justice, State, and judiciary appropriations bill. I recognize the importance of investing in advanced building technologies that can resist damage from hurricanes. As you know, South Carolina has experienced several costly and disastrous hurricanes. Yet our coastal economy continues to expand and to serve as a commercial and recreation resource to our State and the Nation. I agree with my colleague that development of fiberglass-reinforced wood composites is important, and I also encourage the National Institute of Standards and Technology to support the development and deployment of these materials. Improvements to wood building materials will result in direct benefits to the people of South Carolina and all other coastal communities in the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on H.R. 5461, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, legislation to begin, and I stress the word begin, to ensure the conservation of sharks, including addressing the causes and consequences of shark finning. First, I want to recognize Ms. Snow, our chairman on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee, and Mr. Kerry, ranking member of the subcommittee, for putting shark conservation legislation on the committee agenda this Congress. My colleagues recognized the substantial danger international fleets pose to sharks around the world, either as a result of direct harvest, high bycatch, or practices such as shark finning. As with so many of our highly migratory and protected species, we cannot hope to address these threats solely through domestic action. We are here today because of the growing threats to shark populations, which are particularly vulnerable to harvest and bycatch mortality. Most attention has been focused specifically on the practice of shark finning, which has increased dramatically over the past decade, driven by rising demand for fins in the world market. However, there are other threats to shark conservation, including directed shark fisheries and the use of non-selective fishing gear, that must be given further attention, both here and abroad. In addition, the amount of finning done by U.S. fishermen pales by comparison to the amount of finning done by foreign fleets outside of U.S. waters. The global shark fin trade involves at least 125 countries, and the demand for shark fins and other shark products has driven dramatic increases in shark fishing and shark mortality around the world. In 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service estimated that 120 metric tons of shark fins were landed in Hawaii that had been caught by foreign vessels, with a value between $2,376,000 and $2,640,000. That is roughly four times the amount landed by U.S. vessels in the same year. These figures include only figures for shark fins that happen to go through U.S. ports in the Pacific; the total amount of finning by foreign fishermen is undoubtedly much higher. Although I support the legislation before us today, I am disappointed that we were not able to convince House Members and others that passage of S. 2831, the Shark Conservation Act of 2000, introduced by Senator Kerry, and supported by our subcommittee members, was the best course of action to take this year. S. 2831 attempted to address threats to shark conservation in a holistic manner. It looked beyond domestic finning, and provided the administration with tools to address finning by foreign nations as well. As a result, the current bill does not contain the strong international enforcement measures of the Shark Conservation Act. Dr. Andrew Rosenberg of the National Marine Fisheries Service, in October 1999 testimony before the House warned of the consequences of failing to impose international measures against shark finning: . . . even with implementation of new U.S. management measures to prohibit shark finning, in all likelihood, foreign-flagged vessels will continue shark finning in international waters. In the absence of strict international measures to prohibit shark finning, the anticipated result of new U.S. prohibitions would be that foreign vessels will develop new shipment routes for shark fins through ports outside Hawaii. The administration's warning should be taken seriously. When all the press releases and headlines have faded from memory, there is no doubt that foreign fleets will silently, and happily, continue--or even increase--shark finning, with no adverse repercussions to speak of. We sincerely hope that H.R. 5461 will not merely shift shark-finning and the resulting profits over to foreign nations and international corporations, with no net benefit to shark conservation. The only way to prevent this is by applying these rules to everyone. Simply enacting H.R. 5461 without addressing shark conservation internationally is short-sighted and will not solve the problem. In the next Congress, I intend to continue working with my colleagues in the Senate, House, and the new administration, whichever administration that may turn out to be, to craft a solution that will lead to the eventual cessation of finning internationally. Although I do believe that the current bill is not as strong as it should be, I am glad to report it contains a number of provisions from the Senate bill that will lay the foundation for addressing the international fishing practices that threaten shark conservation efforts, including the practice of finning. H.R. 5461 begins the critical process of collecting the information, including data on the international shark fin trade, that is so lacking at the present time by: (1) directing the administration to initiate or continue discussions with other countries to ban shark finning; (2) requiring the collection of information on trade in shark fins and directing the Secretary to report the findings to Congress; and (3) establishing a research program to help improve shark stock assessments, reduce incidental catch, and better utilize sharks captured legally. Let me conclude by stating that I rise in support of this legislation and urge its adoption, but I cannot help but think of what we may have been able to accomplish with passage of Mr. Kerry's bill, S. 2831. H.R. 5461 does take an important first step to end the practice of finning, but it is only the first step--the real work is yet to come.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, It has come to my attention that a young man, Todd Porterfield, was struck by a car and killed over the summer while he was participating in a philanthropy event for Pi Kappa Phi social fraternity, of which I am an alumnus. Todd, a senior at the University of Washington, was on a cross-country bike ride called the Journey of Hope. Each year, the Journey of Hope raises approximately $300,000 for the national organization Push America that supports people with disabilities. Todd's commitment to service was remarkable in someone so young. He not only helped lead philanthropy efforts within his fraternity, but also traveled to Mexico to build homes for the disadvantaged and volunteered for three different shelters and outreach programs for the homeless in Seattle. Todd had a bright future and no doubt would have continued to be an active and caring member of his community. My thoughts are with his friends and family, members of Pi Kappa Phi fraternity and the University of Washington.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my congratulations to Senator Thurmond on his 98th birthday. Few people are lucky enough to reach this milestone in their lives, but fewer still, if any, can claim a life as rich and colorful as Strom Thurmond's. He is what the lawyers call ``sui generis''--one of a kind, unique. Last year, a monument to Senator Thurmond was dedicated on the grounds of the South Carolina Statehouse. It was a deserving tribute, but hardly necessary to mark his many contributions to our State and Nation. He is, after all, a living political icon. Generations of South Carolinians refer to him affectionately as ``Strom'' and his birthday is a celebration of service to our State. I know the people of South Carolina join me and Peatsy in sending Senator Thurmond our best wishes for a wonderful day.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize South Carolina's Thelma Frazier Rivers who will celebrate her 115th birthday on Nov. 3. Mrs. Rivers was born in Darlington County in 1885 and now lives in nearby Timmonsville in Florence County. She and her late husband, Horace, had 22 children and many of them, as well as plenty of grandchildren and great-grandchildren, will help her celebrate this remarkable occasion. Throughout her life, Mrs. Rivers has enjoyed working in her yard and serving at her church, Bethlehem Baptist, in Timmonsville. She was blessed with a beautiful singing voice which she has passed down to her children and grandchildren. She also has a flair for any kind of handiwork, including quilting, and she still enjoys sewing. ``Everyone in Timmonsville knows Thelma,'' one of her daughters explained, and rightly so; Mrs. Thelma Rivers is truly a treasure. My wife, Peatsy, and I wish her continued health and happiness and the most joyful of birthdays.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr President, I rise today to remember one of South Carolina's finest doctors, Michael E. Assey, who passed away on October 28. A graduate of Georgetown University's School of Medicine, Michael joined the staff of the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) in 1979 and rose to the position of Professor of Medicine, Chief of Cardiology. In 1998, he was named to the ``Best Doctors in America'' list. He served as governor of the American College of Cardiology and as president of the S.C. affiliate of the American Heart Association. Michael also authored numerous medical articles and medical textbook chapters. While at MUSC, he received the prestigious Golden Apple Award for excellence in teaching. The President of MUSC, Raymond Greenberg, said, ``his professional legacy lies in the generation of young doctors who, as Michael Assey's students, not only learned clinical skills, but compassion and commitment.'' With Michael's passing, the Medical University has lost a great doctor and great teacher and South Carolina has lost a great man. My wife, Peatsy and I send our thoughts and prayers to Michael's devoted wife, Valerie, and their two children.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Broadwave affiliates of Northpoint Technology proposes to share the spectrum currently being used by the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency bands. Through the use of its technology in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, Northpoint has the potential to provide much needed competition to cable by offering low cost multichannel video services and high- speed Internet access. A provision, however, addressing sharing issues in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band has been added to the ``Launching Our Communities' Access to Local Television Act of 2000'' (also referred to as the Rural Loan Guarantee bill). Section 12 of this Act imposes three general requirements. First, it requires that a terrestrial wireless applicant proposing to use the 12.2-12.7 GHz band have its technology subjected to an independent demonstration or have its technical showings subjected to an independent analysis to determine whether the technology will cause harmful interference to DBS operators. Second, the Federal Communications Commission is required to select an independent engineering firm recommended by the IEEE or other similar body to analyze the technologies proposed in the pending wireless terrestrial applications. Third, the demonstration or analysis must be concluded within 60 days of enactment of the Rural Loan Guarantee bill and the comment cycle cannot exceed an additional 30 days. Lastly, I want to note that enactment of this provision by Congress does not release the FCC from its obligations under section 2002 of SHIVA. In my home state of South Carolina, there are Broadwave affiliates awaiting regulatory approval so that they can begin to provide service. Therefore, I expect that the testing required under the Rural Loan Guarantee legislation will constitute the final interference analysis needed to evaluate sharing requirements between terrestrial applicants with pending applications and existing DBS service providers. Moving this proceeding forward is important, because if Northpoint is able to obtain the necessary regulatory authorizations, it will not only be able to provide competition to cable, but through its affiliate structure, it also will afford small businesses an opportunity to participate in a vibrant segment of the communications marketplace.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I would like to take a moment and join my subcommittee chairman and colleague, Senator Gregg, in commenting on the fiscal year 2001 Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriations portion of the conference report before the Senate today. Once, again, I would like to commend Chairman Gregg for his outstanding efforts and bipartisan approach in bring an appropriations bill to the floor that is good and balanced. Putting together the conference report is always a tremendous challenge, and this year has proven to be no different. We face the challenge of adequately funding a host of varying missions, This bill funds efforts to fight crime and drugs on our streets. This bill funds initiatives that enhance business opportunities for small and large companies at home and abroad. This bill funds agencies like the FTC and the SEC that protect consumers from fraud. This bill provides funding for scientific research needed for better fisheries management. This bill provides free and accurate weather forecasting to farmers who rely on it day by day for tending their crops and to families who live in areas where timely and accurate forecasts can save their lives from violent tornadoes, torrential rains, floods, and hurricanes. While the missions funded through this bill may vary, one point remains constant: The funding provided in this bill seeks to improve the daily lives and safety of all American at home and abroad. In total, the conference report provides $38.0 billion in budget authority which is about $1.7 billion less in total budget authority than the fiscal year 2000 levels. The bill is $12.9 billion less than the President's request level; however, his request level, as in past years, included advanced appropriations, which the CJS Subcommittee traditionally does not provide. Senator Gregg has mentioned many of the funding specifics in this bill, so I will not repeat the details; however, I would like to point out to our colleagues some of the highlights of this bill: justice and law enforcement The conference report provides $21.1 billion for the Department of Justice, including $3.3 billion for the FBI, $1.3 billion for the DEA, $4.8 billion for INS, $4.3 billion for BOP, and $4.6 billion for the Office of Justice Programs. This conference report funds both block grant programs--such as Byrne, local law enforcement, and juvenile justice--and the COPS Program--such as the universal hiring and technology components. Our colleagues in the Senate only need to review the FBI's preliminary annual uniform crime report released this past May to appreciate how well all these programs are working. According to the FBI's report, in 1999, serious crime dropped for an eighth consecutive year, down seven-percent from the year before. This is the longest running crime decline on record. The successful reduction in crime in no small way must be attributed to the bipartisan efforts to fund DOJ's crime fighting initiatives during the past ten years. In an effort to continue the decline in serious crime, we continue to fund many of the programs that are working. Not only are we funding cops on the beat, we also continue the safe schools initiative which Senator Gregg and I started two years ago. This bill provides $227.5 million for this initiative. Madam President, we cannot allow violence or the threat of violence to turn our schools into a hostile setting that prevents our students from obtaining the education they deserve. The bill before the Senate provides increased funding from last year's levels, through the Office of Justice programs, to continue the hiring of school resource officers, and the implementation of community-based planning and prevention activities. This initiative is working but there is much more that has to be done, and this increased funding will continue our efforts to return our schools to a safe place for children to learn. I am pleased to see in this year's conference report $1.3 billion funding for the DEA, which is a $69.45 million increase from last year's level. This funding is aimed at combating the latest battle in the war on drugs--methamphetamines. Included in the DEA fundings is $25.9 million for personnel and operations to combat the production and use of methamphetamines. Also included in the bill is $28.5 million for State and local law enforcement to combat methamphetamine production and $2.5 million for equipment. Another $20.0 million will be transferred from the COPS Hot Spots Program to reimburse the agency for the costs associated with assisting State and local law enforcement in meth lab cleanup. The conference report also includes $288.7 million for the violence against women program, which includes $31.6 million for civil legal assistance, $25 million for rural domestic violence programs, $11.5 million for court appointed special advocates, and $11.0 million for college campus programs. There is one issue within the Department of Justice for which I am disappointed we did not provide funding--the Justice Department's Lawsuit against the Tobacco industry. I appreciate Senator Gregg's effort to reach a middle ground between those members who want to prevent DOJ from bringing a lawsuit, and those who want to provide DOJ with adequate resources to do their job. It is the U.S. court's responsibility to weigh the evidence and decide whether the tobacco companies have broken the law, not Congress's responsibility. In fact, just recently, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia rules that DOJ does have standing to bring a suit against the tobacco companies under the RICO (racketeering, influence, and corrupt organizations) Act. It is Congress's responsibility to provide the Justice Department with the tools and adequate resources it needs to do its job. This conference report does not do that. department of commerce The conference report provides $4.7 billion for the Commerce Department, an increase of $460 million above last year's funding level. We provide $337.4 million for ITA, and while we could not fully fund all of the President's request for this important administration, we did provide funding for the trade compliance initiatives. I also appreciate Senator Gregg's support for language requiring the USTR to assist the Import Administration with office space in Geneva given the importance of the Import Administration's responsibilities relating to antidumping and countervailing duties. While we did not fully fund the administration's new internet access initiatives for NTIA, we did provide more than $100 million in funding for the NTIA to continue its core missions--funding for digital conversion, and funding for infrastructure grants. Regarding technology, the bill includes $312.6 million for NIST scientific and technical research and services. Under NIST, the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is funded at a program level of $190.7 million, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program is funded at $105.1 million. The conference report also provides $3.1 billion for NOAA, more than $700 million above last year's level, and $850 million above the House level for FY 2001. I appreciate Chairman Gregg's support and efforts to insure that we maintain a focus on our oceans and coast. I have made it clear this year that I am disappointed in the administration's request for NOAA. Most of the funding increases requested this year were for community assistance type programs--making NOAA a mini-EDA--and not the science and research missions that have been NOAA's trademark during the past three decades. The budget request was particularly disappointing given the one hundred plus lawsuits currently pending against NOAA due to a lack of scientific data. Madam President, at present, we generate more than 30% of our gross domestic product from coastal areas, and nearly one out of every six jobs is marine-related. By the end of this decade, about 60% of Americans will live along our coasts. We cannot ignore the stress and strain of this growth on our coastal environment, and we must continue to strive for better management of our marine resources. Of course, these efforts are nothing new. Three decades ago, our nation roared into space, investing tens of billions of dollars in that effort. During that golden era of science, some of us also recognized the importance of exploring the seas and protecting the coasts on our own planet. In 1966, Congress enacted the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act in order to define national objectives and programs with respect to the oceans. One of the central elements of the 1966 act was establishment of a Presidential commission, called the Stratton Commission, to develop a plan for national action in the oceans and atmosphere. The Stratton Commission laid the foundation for U.S. ocean and coastal policy and programs and has guided their development for three decades. Their report led to the creation of NOAA and laid the groundwork for science and research and for management regimes that are the cornerstone of our efforts to properly manage our fisheries, and protect our coasts today. This conference report fully funds all of NOAA's base science and research missions. FY 2001 funding for NOAA also includes additional funds for coastal conservation reflecting this year's coastal funding proposals in Congress (``CARA'') and the administration's budget (``lands legacy''). The $420 million in increased funding includes $135 million for specific conservation projects and $135 million to strengthen NOAA's efforts to conserve and protect our coral reefs, national marine sanctuaries and reserves, as well as fisheries and coastal habitats. This $135 million infusion of funding in the coming year will greatly benefit NOAA's important coastal stewardship programs throughout the Nation. The increased coastal funding also includes $150 million to assist those States whose coastal areas are adversely affected by offshore oil development. department of state The conference report includes a total of $7.1 billion for the Department of State and related agencies, an increase of $1.3 billion above last year's funding level of $5.8 billion. Within the State Department account, $1.1 billion has been provided for worldwide security upgrades of State Department facilities. Additionally, the bill provides $846 million to continue our Nation's international peacekeeping activities. summary In closing let me say again that except for a one or two major policy issues this is a decent bill. Many--but not all--of the administration's priorities were addressed to some extent. Likewise many--but not all--of the priorities of our colleagues were addressed to some extent. It is with regret that I cannot support this bill at this time. I cannot support an effort that starts down the slippery slope of the U.S. Congress telling the Department of Justice who they can and cannot sue. It is my hope that this issue will be corrected should this conference report pass the Senate and be vetoed by the President. I would like to take a moment before closing to acknowledge and thank Senator Gregg's staff--Jim Morhard, Kevin Linskey, Paddy Link, Dana Quam, Clayton Heil, and Katherine Hennesey--and my staff--Lila Helms and Sonia King--for their hard work and diligence in bringing together a bill that does everything I have just mentioned and more. They have worked nonstop in a straightforward and bipartisan manner, to deliver the bill that is before the Senate today. This bill could not have come together without their efforts and I thank them for all of their hard work.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is again, correct on both points. As the Senator from New Jersey has stated, the intent of this provision is to allow NOAA to work with the State of New Jersey to acquire lands along the Raritan Bay for inclusion in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is correct.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the General Accounting Office recently concluded that formal software management policies at eight of the sixteen U.S. Federal agencies they investigated were found to be inadequate and that controls over access to software codes were weak. I am convinced that the information systems used by the Department of Defense are critical components of the warfighting capability of the United States. Off-the-shelf and customized software is critical to the functioning of these systems. I rise today to express my concern that the security and integrity of critical government systems could be at great risk if their operational software has been procured or developed outside the United States or without proper oversight and control. I have read, with growing concern, a number of news articles that suggest that foreign software acquisitions can have potentially catastrophic consequences on both classified and unclassified national information management systems used by Federal agencies for sensitive applications. I would like to cite just few examples to illustrate my point. An article in the February 16, 2000, Washington Post discussed the State Department's purchase of an unclassified, but sensitive, business operations system with software code developed by former citizens of the Soviet Union. According to the article, State withdrew the system from their embassies worldwide because they were concerned that hidden code might have been added during development and fielding. The final paragraph of the article states: ``The lesson of State's fiasco is simple--but so important it should be hard-wired: As people and organizations grow more dependent on computers, they become more vulnerable. It's easy to forget that every line of code can be a potential spy or saboteur.'' On March 2, 2000, the New York Times reported that Japanese software suppliers associated with the terrorist sect responsible for the Tokyo subway nerve gas attack had sold software programs to several Japanese government agencies, to include their Defense Ministry. According to the article, the agencies and companies that ordered the software were unaware that the sect was involved because the principal suppliers had sub-contracted the work to others. As recently as June 19, 2000, the Defense News reported that two German defense industry employees were convicted of selling missile secrets to Russia. A software provider could have easily employed these ``spies.'' Unfortunately, this is not a new phenomenon. On October 24, 1999, as we prepared for the Y2K transition, the Los Angeles Times ran an article citing concerns by security experts that the use of foreign contractors for Y2K solutions could have placed critical systems at risk. The article reports that, in the words of one government security expert, ``The use of untested foreign sources for Y2K remediation has created a unique opportunity for foreign countries or companies to access and disrupt sensitive national security and proprietary information systems.'' The GAO further maintained that background screening policies for personnel involved in Y2K remediation were lacking or inadequate despite at least 85 Federal contracts being completed using foreign nationals. The Department of Defense routinely purchases software developed by foreign companies. The Department is often unaware of that fact. For many of its unclassified, but critically important, business operating systems, government agencies contract with a systems integrator. The integrator then selects the software system to be installed as part of the operating system. The Agencies are often not aware that the software was developed in a foreign country, by foreign developers, and perhaps, even in a foreign language. I believe that, at a minimum, the provision of software produced by a U.S. company (or at least software controlled by a U.S. company) should be a consideration in the acquisition process. Encouraging the Defense Department (and other Government agencies) to at least consider the origin and ownership of source codes will not eliminate vulnerability, but it is a step in the right direction. Additionally, it reinforces software development as a key component of our defense industrial base. For that reason, I urge the Administration to put in place protocols in the selection process that consider the origin of all source codes used in the development of information systems acquired or developed. This should include those acquisitions arranged via sub-contracts by prime contractors or system integrators.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you can see the total Federal securities, and the net transactions at the beginning of this year were $5,606.1 trillion. At the close of the month, September 30, the end of fiscal year 2000, the debt was $5,629.0 trillion. The debt increased $22.9 billion. That is not a surplus. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the table of budget realities.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you can see the interest cost of $361,997,734,302.36, and on down the list. At $1 billion a day--I will never forget the comments made by the distinguished majority leader at the time President Clinton was making his address to the joint session of Congress at the beginning of the year. He said that gentleman is costing us $1 billion a minute. The President talked for 90 minutes. Governor Bush wants to cut taxes some $90 billion. So the two of them--the Bush program and the Clinton program--are $180 billion. We are spending $362 billion on interest costs alone. That leaves $182 billion that you can use to increase research for cancer, increase defense--defense is stretched now--and everything else. The point is we are spending a fortune on absolutely nothing. With the profligacy of these past Congresses, the lack of awareness of the American people, and the media's failure to deliver the truth to the American public, I wanted the record to be cleared. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as you can see, during 1968-1969, when President Lyndon Johnson last balanced the budget, we had at that particular time a $2.9 billion surplus. We have been running deficits ever since. I heard the litany in the debates why we had not done anything. When this Congress started 8 years ago, as the Record shows, in 1992, there was a deficit of $403.6 billion. We were spending $403.6 more than we were taking in. Under the 1993 provisions, whereby we not only cut spending but we increased taxes, including the tax on Social Security and the tax on gasoline. We reduced the Federal workforce by 300,000 employees. That got us on the road to reducing the deficit from $403.6 billion to $22.9 billion. But the debt has continued to increase, and there is no surplus. That is the point I am trying to make. Only on last evening, in trying to renegotiate the State-Justice- Commerce bill--I don't know whether it will be included--but they wanted the statement that $240 billion shall be used to pay down the debt. Absolutely false. They transfer the debt to these trust funds that I have already listed in the Record with respect to Social Security, Medicare, military retirement, civilian retirement, unemployment compensation, and on down the list. They are really transferring. They are not paying down anything. There is no surplus. We have increased the debt. The reality is that we have just created the biggest waste in the history of government. I served on the Grace Commission against waste, fraud, and abuse. We worked very diligently and carried out about 85 percent of the recommendations of the Commission. In spite of our efforts, however, under President Reagan's so-called ``voodoo'' economics, the debt increased. We kept going, first under President Reagan, with a $1 trillion debt, and then a second trillion dollars, a third trillion dollars, a fourth trillion, a fifth trillion, and now the debt has grown to $5.7 trillion. Along with that is the interest cost. Under President Johnson, when we balanced that budget, it was $16 billion. That is 200 years of history including the cost of all the wars, from the Revolutionary War, World Wars I and II, Korea, and Vietnam. It has gone from $16 billion up to $362 billion. I ask unanimous consent that this document entitled ``The Public Debt To the Penny'' be printed in the Record and the list of interest costs be printed in the Record as of the day before yesterday, which is the most recent.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it shows that last year--the year 2000-- we owed Social Security some $l.009 trillion. That is a significant figure. The year before that--1999--we owed $855 billion. But you can see it is jumping in increments of $150 billion. These are the trust funds that we are borrowing from when they talk about surplus, because both Republicans and Democrats are talking about the surplus. Governor Bush and Vice President Gore are out on the campaign trail talking about how we are going to spend the money. Yesterday, in USA Today, the headline was ``Clinton announces record $237 billion surplus.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article and headline be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I see our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee here. I ask unanimous consent to have the morning's editorial of the Washington Post entitled ``Say Goodbye to the Surplus'' printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is not goodbye to the surplus. We never had it. I promised the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, that I would jump off the Capitol dome if the so-called Balanced Budget Act balanced the budget by this year. I came close to having to buy a parachute and getting ready to jump. I really did. There was an inordinate collection of revenues, including personal income taxes and corporate returns throughout the year. I was extremely worried and was going to have to face up to the truth to my good friend, the distinguished chairman of our Budget Committee. But I was saved by the bell with the reality that we never had a surplus. There is no better document than this one. The Treasury news ``For Immediate Release'' of October 24 entitled ``Joint Statements of Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary of the Treasury, and Jacob J. Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget on budget results for the fiscal year 2000.''

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am going to go into my frustration that, I take it, is well known. I am back almost like George Wallace some 30 years ago when he said there wasn't a dime's worth of difference. Both Republicans and Democrats pass these trade bills on the premise that they are going to create jobs in America, when the truth of the matter is they are going to create jobs outside of America. We are going to transfer the fine, good manufacturing jobs from the United States--more or less the middle class of the country-- to countries offshore and to Mexico and the Caribbean. Otherwise, we constantly talk of saving Social Security--both Republicans and Democrats--when the truth of the matter is we are squandering Social Security. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``Trust Funds Looted to Balance Budget.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me say that no one has really performed more distinguished service than our colleague from Nevada, Richard Bryan. I have seen them all now over my 34 years. Senator Bryan has judgment. It comes from his hard experience as a State's Governor, and it comes from a tremendous sense of history. I have always been impressed with his fascinating knowledge of historical facts, and he brings history into focus in regard to present-day realities. We are going to miss that. We are going to miss that here in the Senate. We are going to miss his charming wife Bonnie. We have worked with both of them, traveled with both of them, and they have made a magnificent contribution to the future of this country. I have said time and again that, more than a balanced budget, what we need is balanced Senators, balanced Congressmen. If anyone is one who is really balanced in his approach to the needs of the Nation and the way we go about doing our business here in the Senate, it is Richard Bryan of Nevada. I didn't realize that was what we were going to have here this morning, but I jump at the chance to say something about a distinguished Senator such as Senator Bryan.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the United States has over 2 million fires annually. Each one can devastate a family or business. I should know. Last year, I lost my home in Charleston, SC to fire. The statistics--approximately 4500 deaths, 30,000 civilian injuries, more than $8 billion in direct property losses, and more than $50 billion in costs to taxpayers each year--do not tell the whole story. A fire can take away a lifetime of things that have true value only to the person who has suffered the loss. The tragic thing is that most of these fires are preventable. H.R. 1550 would authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Fire Administration provides invaluable services--such as training, data, arson assistance, and research for better safety equipment and clothing--to the more than 1.2 million paid and volunteer firefighters throughout the Nation. The administration's FY 2001 budget request for the Fire Administration was $69 million, $25 million of which was for grants to local fire departments. S. 1941, the Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act, authorizes $100 million in FY 2001 and $300 million in FY 2002 for these grants. That bill was ordered to be reported by the Commerce Committee on Spetember 20, 2000. Subsequently, the text of S. 1941, as reported, was included in the Department of Defense Authorization Act. Therefore, the substitute amendment to H.R. 1550 now under consideration does not include funding for grants to local fire departments within the Fire Administration's FY 2001 authorization. The bill also provides additional funding for counterterrorism training, requires the Fire Administration to submit a strategic plan and a plan for research, and makes technical corrections to the Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 and the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation Act. I support H.R. 1550 and urge its immediate passage. Amendment No. 4324 (Purpose: To authorize appropriations for the Fire Administration, and for other purposes)