Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming talked about the commitment to pay down the national debt, but on page 5, the national debt is listed beginning on line 20, fiscal year 2000, as $5.625 trillion going up to, on page 6, $5.923 trillion. It's an increase in the debt of $297,712,000. Here is the Senator's commitment to reducing the national debt. There is no commitment that I have seen. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a listing of the national debt as it has gone up since the days of President Truman.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will do it on our time. It is not a question of time. I wanted to ask a question because I am referring, on page 2, to line 12: Until such time as Congress enacts Social Security reform legislation, these surplus funds of Social Security shall be used to reduce the debt. So you are using Social Security trust funds to pay down the national debt? And yet you are saying we are saving Social Security. So if I increase the debt for Kosovo or for regular defense or for food stamps or for foreign aid or for your pay and my pay, or whatever, that is the debt of the Government. That is the national debt and you use Social Security to pay it?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this particular chart shows that in 1999 we looted $1.869 trillion from all of the trust funds. This year, we are on course to loot $2.106 trillion. We have $78 billion in non-Social Security surpluses. That is tied up in Medicare, military retirement, civilian retirement, the unemployment compensation fund, the highway- airport trust fund, railroad retirement, etc. We are beginning to make the record and have it understood. If there is any doubt with respect to the public debt, I refer to the particular budget that is now under consideration on page 5, ``Public Debt.'' ``The appropriate levels of public debt . . .''--I am referring to the budget; it will get a majority vote. We are going through a little exercise. I say ``a little exercise''; it is actually a charade. We worked 2 days and nights, and we produced the budget. Upon completion of a budget resolution in committee, the chairman is allowed to make technical adjustments through a unanimous consent. This year the technical adjustment was $60 billion. Imagine that. Tell the appropriators they have to cut some $60 billion in order to fall within the caps. The instrument itself, I refer to S. Con. Res. 101, page 5: (5) Public debt.-- The appropriate levels of the public debt are. . . . And then they list the levels for 2000 through 2005 going from $5.625 trillion to $5.923 trillion. That is without that $60 billion technical adjustment. But even there, they list the debt going up $297 billion. This is the overall debt, which is not going down. When they say ``paying down the debt,'' they are instead referring to the public debt. With the course we are on, by the year 2013 there will not be any surpluses of payroll tax revenues sufficiently large to make the payments due on that particular year. So we are going to be running into a wall, and we will have to either cut the benefits or raise the taxes. I ran over what we had done on the Grace Commission about cutting spending, but each year the spending goes up because health costs are going up, the military costs are going up. We have to live in the real world. Everybody understands that. Here is the first frontal assault according to the Allard amendment: You shall spend the Social Security surpluses. Until such time as Congress enacts major Social Security reform legislation, the surplus funds of Social Security shall be used to reduce the debt. What you are doing is using Social Security moneys to make it appear that the debt is less and some kind of interest cost is saved. The truth is, you have gone from one credit card to the other. That is the sort of game we have played each year, making the debt increase from less than $1 trillion under President Johnson, when he balanced the budget back in 1968 and 1969, to almost $5.7 trillion now. Interests costs of only $16 billion back then are now $362 billion, or $1 billion a day. That is a waste. If we had that $200-some billion we are paying in interest costs, I could almost double the defense budget, give you all the research for health, build all the highways, bridges, the libraries, courthouses. We could do everything anybody wanted to do. I could give Gov. George W. Bush's tax cut and Vice President Gore's program of spending. We are spending the money for nothing. When are we going to get hold of ourselves and sober up and cut out this political campaign? The worst campaign finance abuse is us. We are using our payroll to run around here and give a lark and a story to the American people that we are going to save Social Security; no, we are going to pay down the debt, pay down the public debt. I retain the remainder of our time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. Bonds are IOUs, so you just increase the IOUs.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, now the gamesmanship is revealed. Look at this amendment. It says let's spend Social Security. Let me read that to you. Until such time as Congress enacts major Social Security reform legislation, the surplus funds each year of the Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust funds shall be reused to reduce the debt owed by the public. This section shall not apply beginning the fiscal year. They say reduce the debt owed by the public. You are back to playing the game of taking one credit card and paying off the other credit card and owing the same amount. It is as if I have a MasterCard and a Visa card. I want to pay off the Visa card with the MasterCard. I say the Visa card is the public debt. And I paid it off--$3.6 trillion--never mentioning that my MasterCard bill went up by the same amount. My distinguished colleague from Wyoming is a cosponsor. He smiles because he is a CPA. He knows what we're talking about. As the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Dr. Rivlin, says, you are just taking the debt from one pocket and putting it in another. I want the distinguished Chair and the Parliamentarian to pay close attention because a point of order will be made later. In other words, over on the third page of the particular amendment, it reads: No bill to increase revenues shall be deemed to have passed the House of Representatives or the Senate unless approved by a majority of the total membership of each House of Congress by a rollcall vote. That is in violation of Section 305 of the Budget Act. It has not been considered and referred to the Budget Committee. That point of order can be made in due time. I refer to what the law says about the public debt, and not what Alan Greenspan says. I worked with Alan Greenspan 20 years ago when I was the chairman of the Budget Committee. I have tremendous respect and affection for him. But he represents Wall Street. As long as we can borrow from ourselves; namely, as long as we can spend surpluses on government programs, then we stay out of the stock market. Mr. Greenspan doesn't want us coming in with the sharp elbows of Government driving out private capital and running up interest rates. As long as we play the game for Wall Street, Mr. Greenspan is happy. We have had a wonderful economy. Rather than raise interest rates, we ought to put in a value-added tax allocated to reducing the deficit and the debt. Then we could save trillions of dollars not only in principal but in interest costs. That bill is in the Finance Committee. I introduced it. I had a hearing when Senator Bentsen was the chairman. But I have not been able to get a hearing on it since then. I would be glad to start this afternoon with a hearing on that initiative. I think that is what we have to do. This debt goes up, up, and away, as shown by the numbers published by the Secretary of Treasury. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the public debt issued by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, upon taking office, President Ronald Reagan appointed a commission to root out government waste, fraud and abuse. Headed by Peter Grace, the Grace Commission reviewed the numerous Federal departments and agencies, and called for the elimination of tremendous waste. The commission also called for an annual report on the implementation of its recommendations. Eighty-five percent of the Grace Commission's recommendations were implemented by 1989, but today not only has Congress abandoned the Grace Commission's initiative but is racing in the other direction. Section 201 of the Social Security Act requires that Social Security surpluses be invested in Treasury bills so that the trust fund can reap interest and grow. Paradoxically, section 201 requires that the trust fund be spent or eliminated. When you buy Treasury bills you give the Government the money and the Government, in turn, gives you a note or bond which amounts to an IOU. The only way to have the trust fund reflect a surplus instead of a deficit is to require the Secretary of the Treasury to maintain in the trust fund cash in an amount equal to the total redemption value of its Treasury bills. Today, instead of trust fund surpluses of $1,099 billion, the Social Security ``lockbox'' is $1,009 billion in IOUs. The policy of investing in U.S. Government instruments is sound. Some think that the fund could make more money by investing in the stock market, but this involves risk that the Congress is determined not to take. Fifteen years ago we only owed Social Security $50 billion. We were not worried because we were taking in surpluses each year. In 1990, we amended the Budget Act prohibiting the President and/or Congress from reporting a budget offset by Social Security surpluses. We wanted the people to know the true condition of the Social Security trust fund and the growth of the national debt. Nevertheless, surpluses continued to be applied against the national debt obscuring its elephantine growth. As the debt grows, carrying charges or interest costs grow. Come the year 2013, there will be a day of reckoning. In 2013, there will not be enough revenue from payroll taxes to pay the Social Security benefits. Congress, for the first time, will look to the trust fund which was supposed to have been saved to take care of the baby boomers. Instead, the Social Security trust fund is projected to be in the red $4 trillion. Congress will have two options: cut the benefits or raise the taxes. Looking at the increasing need and already short $4 trillion, Congress will no doubt cut benefits. In the meantime, interests costs on the national debt, the waste that the Grace Commission intended to eliminate, grows like ``gangbusters.'' When President Lyndon Johnson balanced the budget last in 1968 the annual interest cost on the national debt was only $16 billion. Today, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates it will be $362 billion--almost a billion dollars a day for nothing. No one thinks we should accumulate $4 trillion in the Social Security trust fund by repealing section 201. Yet, the people should be awakened to the fact that Congress hasn't paid for the Government it has been providing for 31 years. CBO estimated in February that we will spend $58.9 billion more this year than we take in. Looking at the votes in Congress since that time, the deficit will exceed $100 billion. Talk of a surplus is a total farce. Talk of not spending Social Security is a total farce. Talk of a Social Security lockbox is a total farce. And any proposal for a tax cut is no more than an increase in the debt, an increase in interest costs, an increase in waste. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator and yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in an attempt to settle a long-standing dispute between the National Park Service (NPS) and Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. (FST) regarding the calculation of FST's Concessioner Franchise Fees. Fort Sumter National Monument was established by Congress in 1948 and is located in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Congress directed that the National Park Service (NPS) ``Shall maintain and preserve it [the fort] for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States.'' (16 USC 450ee et. seq.) Since 1962, the private concessioner, Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. (FST), has provided visitors with service to this national monument. In 1985, FST was asked by NPS to acquire a new landside docking facility and invest in a new boat that would cost FST over $1 million. In exchange for these investments, an agreement was reached between FST and the NPS to provide a fifteen-year contract, with a franchise fee set by the NPS at 4.25 percent of gross receipts. By statutory law all park concessionaires are required to pay a franchise fee based upon a percentage of their gross receipts. In 1992 the NPS unilaterally attempted to increase FST's franchise fee from 4.25 percent to 12 percent and a dispute has existed ever since. This increase was based upon a Franchise Fee Analysis (FFA) prepared by the NPS, which FST claims to be inconsistent with Park Service guidelines existing at that time. I believe if errors have been made they need to be corrected. While the Courts have ruled that the NPS has the authority to raise the franchise fee, that is not the actual dispute. The actual dispute is whether the NPS calculated the increase in these fees appropriately. This legislation provides for arbitration between FST and the NPS to settle a dispute that has lasted for almost eight years. By the NPS's own account, FST has been a valuable service benefiting thousands and thousands of visitors to Fort Sumter National Monument. It is time for the NPS and FST to settle their differences and move forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation in an attempt to settle a long-standing dispute between the National Park Service (NPS) and Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. (FST) regarding the calculation of FST's Concessioner Franchise Fees. Fort Sumter National Monument was established by Congress in 1948 and is located in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Congress directed that the National Park Service (NPS) ``Shall maintain and preserve it [the fort] for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States.'' (16 USC 450ee et. seq.) Since 1962, the private concessioner, Fort Sumter Tours, Inc. (FST), has provided visitors with service to this national monument. In 1985, FST was asked by NPS to acquire a new landside docking facility and invest in a new boat that would cost FST over $1 million. In exchange for these investments, an agreement was reached between FST and the NPS to provide a fifteen-year contract, with a franchise fee set by the NPS at 4.25 percent of gross receipts. By statutory law all park concessionaires are required to pay a franchise fee based upon a percentage of their gross receipts. In 1992 the NPS unilaterally attempted to increase FST's franchise fee from 4.25 percent to 12 percent and a dispute has existed ever since. This increase was based upon a Franchise Fee Analysis (FFA) prepared by the NPS, which FST claims to be inconsistent with Park Service guidelines existing at that time. I believe if errors have been made they need to be corrected. While the Courts have ruled that the NPS has the authority to raise the franchise fee, that is not the actual dispute. The actual dispute is whether the NPS calculated the increase in these fees appropriately. This legislation provides for arbitration between FST and the NPS to settle a dispute that has lasted for almost eight years. By the NPS's own account, FST has been a valuable service benefiting thousands and thousands of visitors to Fort Sumter National Monument. It is time for the NPS and FST to settle their differences and move forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter, signed by 45 members of the Democratic Caucus, be printed in the Record. Moreover, I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Sarbanes, ranking member of the Banking Committee, and Senator Leahy, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, for their assistance in the preparation for the conference on S. 761, the digital signature bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oceans Act of 2000, a bill calling for a plan of action for the twenty- first century to explore, protect, and use our oceans and coasts through the coming millennium. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by my colleagues, Senators Stevens, Snowe, Kerry, Breaux, Inouye, Cleland, Wyden, Akaka, Boxer, Murray, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Lieberman, Moynihan, Reed, Sarbanes, and Schumer. This is not the first time I have come before you to advocate legislation to ensure our national ocean policy is coordinated, effective, and sustainable for future generations. In 1997, I introduced an Oceans Act to create both an independent ocean commission and a federal interagency ocean council. While the Senate passed this bill unanimously, it was not enacted before the end of the 105th Congress. We continued the work we started in 1997 by introducing the Senate-passed bill as S. 959, cosponsored by 23 Senators from both sides of the aisle, in May of last year. I now introduce the Oceans Act of 2000, a new bill that reflects the lessons learned among state and federal policymakers, ocean-related industries, and public interest groups who worked together during and after the 1998 Year of the Ocean. What we heard loud and clear from these groups was the need for a balanced, high-level national commission to determine whether the United States is managing its oceans and coasts wisely, and how we can improve or refocus our efforts. Thus, the Oceans Act of 2000 focuses exclusively on the appointment of an independent national Ocean Commission to recommend ways to ensure our nation's ocean policy is coordinated, effective, and sustainable for future generations. I believe this is both improved and streamlined legislation that will enjoy wide support from industry, conservation groups, and States. Already we have received letters of support from a cross-section of these interests, all of whom believe we cannot wait any longer to enact this important legislation. Mr. President, it is critical that we enact the Oceans Act of 2000 this year. In 1966 Congress enacted legislation to establish a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources (known as the Stratton Commission for its chairman, Julius Stratton) that was to recommend a comprehensive national program to explore the oceans, develop marine and coastal resources, and conserve the sea. The Stratton Commission's report and recommendations have shaped U.S. ocean policy for three decades. We have long needed to take a hard look at this legacy, and a national Ocean Commission could comprehensively evaluate concerns that cannot be viewed effectively through current federal processes or through privately-commissioned studies. For example, an Ocean Commission could evaluate charges that the most critical coastal management issues, such as fishery conservation and data needs, are not given appropriate priority and funding. It could consider whether ocean management regimes that have developed over the last 30 years under a variety of agencies are duplicative and uncoordinated, resulting in costly or time-consuming requirements that may provide little incremental environmental benefit. Finally, it could address the argument that we lack a plan to evalute and plan for future resource needs or to derive benefits from discoveries made possible by advances in ocean technology. It would be difficult to coherently address all these concerns without the high-level comprehensive review provided by this legislation. The Oceans Act of 2000 would establish a 16-member Commission, similar to the Stratton Commission, to examine ocean and coastal activities and report within 18 months on recommendations for a national policy. The Commission members would be selected from individuals nominated by majority and minority representatives in both houses of Congress. Eligible individuals include those representing state and local governments, ocean-related industries and public interest groups. I have included new provisions stating that the membership should be balanced geographically to the extent consistent with maintaining the highest level of expertise. The Oceans Act of 2000 specifies that the Commission should examine concerns that range from priority and planning issues to regulatory reform. The Commission is specifically charged with evaluating the cumulative regulatory effect of the myriad of ocean and coastal management regimes, and crafting recommendations for resolving inconsistencies. To ensure we can meet future technical and funding challenges and set our national priorities appropriately, the Commission is directed to review the known and anticipated supply of, and demand for, ocean and coastal resources, as well as review opportunities for development or investment in new products, technologies, or markets related to ocean and coastal activities. Because I believe the Commission should focus on large-scale ocean and coastal policy questions, the bill includes a provision clarifying that the Commission recommendations shall not be specific to the lands and waters within a single state. Finally, once the Commission issues its recommendations, the President must report to Congress on how he will respond to or implement Commission recommendations. We want to be sure that this body is fully informed of, and participates in, how the Nation proceeds once the Commission has completed its work. Finally, the effective date of the Act is at December 31, 2000 in order to enable the current Administration to complete its interagency ocean initiative before the end of the current term, and allow the incoming Administration time to evaluate the Commission nominees and make appointments. This version does not include a federal interagency Ocean Council--I believe that this function is now being filled by the sub-cabinet level Ocean Policy Task Force process announced by the Administration last year. Establishing a second interagency council now would be duplicative, and it is my firm belief that the independent Commission will adequately assess whether the existing interagency process is appropriate or sufficient to address its recommendations. However, it is my hope that interagency coordination on oceans policy will remain an important priority for the next Administration. And I look forward to the day that ocean policy issues are given the highest priority within the federal government by a Cabinet-level entity, without the infighting or discord that has impeded our progress on these issues. Mr. President, this legislation is both appropriate and long overdue. By the end of this decade about 60% of Americans will live along our coasts, which account for less than 10% of our land area. I am amazed that in this era, when we've invested billions of dollars in exploring other planets, we know so little about the ocean and coastal systems upon which we and other living things depend. Large storms events like Hurricanes Floyd and Hugo, driven by ocean-circulation patterns, pose the ultimate risk to human health and safety. El Nino-related climate events have led to increased incidence of malaria in areas of Colombia and Venezuela. Harmful algal blooms have been linked to deaths of sea lions in California and manatees in Florida, and we are still searching to understand their effects on humans. Mr. President, the oceans are integral to our lives but we are not putting a priority on finding ways to learn more about them, and what they may hold for our future. The oceans are home to 80% of all life forms on Earth, but only 1% of our biotechnology R&D budget will focus on marine life forms. Of the 4 manned submersibles in the world capable of descending to half of the ocean's maximum depth, not a single one of them is operated by the United States! The Stratton Commission stated in 1969: ``How fully and wisely the United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for food and raw materials, its positions and influence in the World community, and the quality of the environment in which its people live.'' those words are as true today as they were 30 years ago. Mr. President, it is time to look towards the next 30 years. This bill offers us the vision and understanding needed to establish sound ocean and coastal policies for the 21st century, and I think the cosponsors of the legislation for joining with me in recognizing its significance. We look forward to working together in the bipartisan spirit of the Stratton Commission to enact legislation this year that ensures the development of an integrated national ocean and coastal policy well into the next millennium.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oceans Act of 2000, a bill calling for a plan of action for the twenty- first century to explore, protect, and use our oceans and coasts through the coming millennium. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by my colleagues, Senators Stevens, Snowe, Kerry, Breaux, Inouye, Cleland, Wyden, Akaka, Boxer, Murray, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Lieberman, Moynihan, Reed, Sarbanes, and Schumer. This is not the first time I have come before you to advocate legislation to ensure our national ocean policy is coordinated, effective, and sustainable for future generations. In 1997, I introduced an Oceans Act to create both an independent ocean commission and a federal interagency ocean council. While the Senate passed this bill unanimously, it was not enacted before the end of the 105th Congress. We continued the work we started in 1997 by introducing the Senate-passed bill as S. 959, cosponsored by 23 Senators from both sides of the aisle, in May of last year. I now introduce the Oceans Act of 2000, a new bill that reflects the lessons learned among state and federal policymakers, ocean-related industries, and public interest groups who worked together during and after the 1998 Year of the Ocean. What we heard loud and clear from these groups was the need for a balanced, high-level national commission to determine whether the United States is managing its oceans and coasts wisely, and how we can improve or refocus our efforts. Thus, the Oceans Act of 2000 focuses exclusively on the appointment of an independent national Ocean Commission to recommend ways to ensure our nation's ocean policy is coordinated, effective, and sustainable for future generations. I believe this is both improved and streamlined legislation that will enjoy wide support from industry, conservation groups, and States. Already we have received letters of support from a cross-section of these interests, all of whom believe we cannot wait any longer to enact this important legislation. Mr. President, it is critical that we enact the Oceans Act of 2000 this year. In 1966 Congress enacted legislation to establish a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources (known as the Stratton Commission for its chairman, Julius Stratton) that was to recommend a comprehensive national program to explore the oceans, develop marine and coastal resources, and conserve the sea. The Stratton Commission's report and recommendations have shaped U.S. ocean policy for three decades. We have long needed to take a hard look at this legacy, and a national Ocean Commission could comprehensively evaluate concerns that cannot be viewed effectively through current federal processes or through privately-commissioned studies. For example, an Ocean Commission could evaluate charges that the most critical coastal management issues, such as fishery conservation and data needs, are not given appropriate priority and funding. It could consider whether ocean management regimes that have developed over the last 30 years under a variety of agencies are duplicative and uncoordinated, resulting in costly or time-consuming requirements that may provide little incremental environmental benefit. Finally, it could address the argument that we lack a plan to evalute and plan for future resource needs or to derive benefits from discoveries made possible by advances in ocean technology. It would be difficult to coherently address all these concerns without the high-level comprehensive review provided by this legislation. The Oceans Act of 2000 would establish a 16-member Commission, similar to the Stratton Commission, to examine ocean and coastal activities and report within 18 months on recommendations for a national policy. The Commission members would be selected from individuals nominated by majority and minority representatives in both houses of Congress. Eligible individuals include those representing state and local governments, ocean-related industries and public interest groups. I have included new provisions stating that the membership should be balanced geographically to the extent consistent with maintaining the highest level of expertise. The Oceans Act of 2000 specifies that the Commission should examine concerns that range from priority and planning issues to regulatory reform. The Commission is specifically charged with evaluating the cumulative regulatory effect of the myriad of ocean and coastal management regimes, and crafting recommendations for resolving inconsistencies. To ensure we can meet future technical and funding challenges and set our national priorities appropriately, the Commission is directed to review the known and anticipated supply of, and demand for, ocean and coastal resources, as well as review opportunities for development or investment in new products, technologies, or markets related to ocean and coastal activities. Because I believe the Commission should focus on large-scale ocean and coastal policy questions, the bill includes a provision clarifying that the Commission recommendations shall not be specific to the lands and waters within a single state. Finally, once the Commission issues its recommendations, the President must report to Congress on how he will respond to or implement Commission recommendations. We want to be sure that this body is fully informed of, and participates in, how the Nation proceeds once the Commission has completed its work. Finally, the effective date of the Act is at December 31, 2000 in order to enable the current Administration to complete its interagency ocean initiative before the end of the current term, and allow the incoming Administration time to evaluate the Commission nominees and make appointments. This version does not include a federal interagency Ocean Council--I believe that this function is now being filled by the sub-cabinet level Ocean Policy Task Force process announced by the Administration last year. Establishing a second interagency council now would be duplicative, and it is my firm belief that the independent Commission will adequately assess whether the existing interagency process is appropriate or sufficient to address its recommendations. However, it is my hope that interagency coordination on oceans policy will remain an important priority for the next Administration. And I look forward to the day that ocean policy issues are given the highest priority within the federal government by a Cabinet-level entity, without the infighting or discord that has impeded our progress on these issues. Mr. President, this legislation is both appropriate and long overdue. By the end of this decade about 60% of Americans will live along our coasts, which account for less than 10% of our land area. I am amazed that in this era, when we've invested billions of dollars in exploring other planets, we know so little about the ocean and coastal systems upon which we and other living things depend. Large storms events like Hurricanes Floyd and Hugo, driven by ocean-circulation patterns, pose the ultimate risk to human health and safety. El Nino-related climate events have led to increased incidence of malaria in areas of Colombia and Venezuela. Harmful algal blooms have been linked to deaths of sea lions in California and manatees in Florida, and we are still searching to understand their effects on humans. Mr. President, the oceans are integral to our lives but we are not putting a priority on finding ways to learn more about them, and what they may hold for our future. The oceans are home to 80% of all life forms on Earth, but only 1% of our biotechnology R&D budget will focus on marine life forms. Of the 4 manned submersibles in the world capable of descending to half of the ocean's maximum depth, not a single one of them is operated by the United States! The Stratton Commission stated in 1969: ``How fully and wisely the United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for food and raw materials, its positions and influence in the World community, and the quality of the environment in which its people live.'' those words are as true today as they were 30 years ago. Mr. President, it is time to look towards the next 30 years. This bill offers us the vision and understanding needed to establish sound ocean and coastal policies for the 21st century, and I think the cosponsors of the legislation for joining with me in recognizing its significance. We look forward to working together in the bipartisan spirit of the Stratton Commission to enact legislation this year that ensures the development of an integrated national ocean and coastal policy well into the next millennium.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator will yield, I am trying to retain some time for my cosponsor, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. I heard 10 minutes ago he was on his way to the floor. I would be glad for the Senator to proceed if we could reserve 10 minutes of time when Senator Specter gets here at 11:45.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We have no time. I have the Senator from Pennsylvania coming. I want to be accommodating but time is limited.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin. I only hasten to add that this particular amendment has nothing to do with favoring or opposing the McCain-Feingold amendment. I have voted for that at least four or five times already. Read the Nixon v. Shrink decision when they say money is speech, and in the Colorado v. FEC decision when they allowed soft money. One can tell a majority of the Court has no idea. Money talks; money is speech--that is the way the Court is going. I reiterate, McCain- Feingold is an act in futility. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Jonathan Bingham, ``Democracy or Plutocracy? The Case for a Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Buckley v. Valeo'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is my request, Mr. President.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, that article was 10 years after Buckley v. Valeo. I am constantly reminded by the opposition that I only got 38 votes in 1997 for my amendment. There is a pleasure, an enjoyment to this wonderful corruption. There is not any question we used to have a better conscience. This article shows how even the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and others cosponsored it. I had a dozen Republican cosponsors. Now the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, have it down to a Republican article of faith: We have the money and they, the Democrats, have the unions, and so we are not going to limit the money. Governor George W. Bush has already raised $74 million and spent all but $8 million of it. He spent $64 million by March. The very idea of buying the office is a disgrace. It is a disgrace. As Senator Long of Louisiana said when we passed the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, we want to make sure everyone can participate. Buckley v. Valeo has stood the first amendment on its head. It has taken it away. That is what the Senator from Wisconsin, the Senator from Kentucky, and others do not understand. The Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, amended the first amendment to take away the speech of the ordinary American in important Federal elections. There is no question when one has to raise 5.5 million bucks in a little State like South Carolina--I looked around for somebody else to run last time. We could not get them to run for Congress because it cost too much. We could not even get a candidate on our side in the First District, in the Third District, and all around. It has gotten to where people say: Look, this thing costs too much; I don't have the time, I don't have the money. That is a part of the corruption. Look at the considerations of Justice White 25 years ago, and I read from his opinion. I remind everybody that four of the Justices found money as property and not speech; it could be controlled. It was only by a 1-vote margin that we are into this 25-year dilemma, like a dog chasing its tail around and around and the corruption growing and growing. I quote from Justice White: It is accepted that Congress has power under the Constitution to regulate the election of Federal officers, including the President and Vice President. This includes the authority to protect the elective processes against the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics--open violence and insidious corruption. Then talking about the insidious corruption: Pursuant to this undoubted power of Congress to vindicate the strong public interest in controlling corruption and other undesirable uses of money in connection with election campaigns, the Federal Election Campaign Act substantially broadened the reporting and disclosure requirements that so long have been a part of the Federal law. Congress also concluded that limitations on contributions and expenditures were essential if the aims of the act were to be achieved fully. Buckley v. Valeo limited contributions. It took away freedom of speech under the premise here--what a terrible thing. I have the quotes from the distinguished Senator from Kentucky that ``we eviscerate the first amendment with this Hollings-Specter amendment that limits who may speak, when they may speak, what they may speak''--by the way, this applies to the press--``what they may report, when they may report and who may report.'' Actually, there is no question that the decision in Buckley amended the first amendment. What we are trying to do is complete a uniformity where everybody is treated equally, the speech of the contributor as well as the speech of the candidate. Going on, I quote from Justice White: The congressional judgment which was ours to accept was that other steps must be taken to counter the corrosive effects of money in Federal election campaigns. This is 25 years ago: One of these steps is 608(e), which aside from those funds that are given to the candidate or spent at his request or with his approval or cooperation, limits what a contributor may independently spend in support or denigration of one running for Federal office. That is the soft money about which we are talking. Moving on, I quote: Congress was plainly of the view that these expenditures also have the potential for corruption. But the Court claimed more insight as to what may improperly influence candidates than is possessed by the majority of Congress that passed this bill, and the President who signed it. Those supporting the bill undeniably include many seasoned professionals who have been deeply involved in elective processes and have viewed them at close range over many years. Then he goes on: I have little doubt, in addition, that limiting the total that can be spent will ease the candidate's understandable obsession with fundraising and so free him and his staff to communicate in more places and ways unconnected with the fundraising function. Actually talking about freedom of speech, you have time to talk to constituents. I remember after the last campaign, I went around the State, county to county, and they said: Fritz, why in the world are you coming around? You just won. I said: Yeah, but I really didn't get to talk to the voters. I had to talk to contributors. I didn't have time for the voters other than during the scheduled debates. I would like to meet the voters and talk to them in a more intimate way. That is quoted in the press. This is 25 years ago, foreseeing the corruption. I quote from Justice White: There is nothing objectionable, indeed, it seems to me a weighty interest in favor of the provision in the attempt to insulate the political expression of Federal candidates from the influence inevitably exerted by the endless job of raising increasingly large sums of money. I regret that the Court has returned them all to the treadmill. It is also important to restore and maintain public confidence in Federal elections. It is critical to obviate or dispel the impression that Federal elections are purely and simply a function of money, that Federal officers are bought and sold, or that political races are reserved for those who have the facility and the stomach for doing whatever it takes to bring together those interest groups and individuals who can raise or contribute large fortunes in order to prevail at the polls. I could go on and on. There is no question that we had a very erudite observation here by Justice White, very visionary. Everybody says: You have to have somebody who has vision. That is a visionary statement in Buckley v. Valeo. Even though it was in a dissenting opinion, it foretold what we were going to run into. Once the campaign was over, I thought we would come up here and work for the people of the United States, not for ourselves. We could give all the time to our treadmill here, as Justice White says, but we raise the money, raise the money, raise the money, raise the money. It goes on and on and it takes away from our actual function as the most deliberative body. Yes, we got only 38 votes the last time. The conscience is diminishing. We got a majority vote back in the 1980s back when we had a conscience. We also once had a conscience on the budget. Now we hold the totally false premise that a deficit is a surplus. I do not have today's data, but I have the day before yesterday's. We have The Public Debt To the Penny. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum call not be charged.

Mr. HOLLINGS. This is the conscience of this crowd here. When you can't get votes--it is amazing I get any kind of votes because the overwhelming majority calls this deficit a surplus. You can find out that on 9-30-99, the debt was $5.656 trillion. It has now grown to $5.730 trillion. I just got back from London. I had lunch there with Parliament, and I asked the Presiding Officer: Do you all have a deficit or a surplus? He said: Oh, we have a surplus. We have a balanced budget. I said: How do you measure it? He said: By the amount of money you have to borrow. The distinguished Presiding Officer is an eminent certified public accountant. He knows how to keep the books. He would not go along with the kinds of books we keep here, showing that we're borrowing money and calling it a surplus. It's a deficit. It is an increase in the debt. In addition, the interest expense on the public debt outstanding is $158,799,000,000. That is what we have spent just on interest costs since the beginning of the fiscal year. That is the real waste. We had a conscience under President Reagan; now it's waste, fraud, and abuse. I served on the Grace Commission. Surely, we could get votes in those days because we had a conscience. We don't have a conscience anymore. Thirty-eight votes; I am lucky to get 18. I don't mind. Somehow, somewhere, some time, this has to be exposed. It is one grand corruption of the Congress itself. We know it. Everybody else knows it. The public showed that they know it, too, during the primaries. If we do not get a hold of ourselves and do something about it in this particular session, we are gone goslings. That is all I have to say. It is a tragic thing when you have to stand up here and defend the right of the people to vote on controlling spending in elections. They have it at city hall with the constable. They have it in the State capitals with the Governor. Now we have it with the national Congress. Everybody wants to try to control spending. We go along with this farce of free speech and that we are amending the Constitution, really, the first amendment. In reality we are amending the Constitution to give the first amendment its freedom of speech. The first amendment gave that freedom of speech, but once money is attached to the speech, you take it away from those who do not have money. That is exactly what has occurred. Buckley v. Valeo has amended the first amendment. They are all so excited and alarmed about it and laugh as they go back into the Cloakroom because they know exactly what we are talking about on the floor. Nobody is here. It is a Tuesday morning and nobody has to vote until 2:15. We will have a caucus and we will go in and talk about how we have been doing on fundraising. Then when we get through talking about doing the fundraising, we will go ahead and vote this down, according to the Senator from Kentucky. But there will come another day. I am glad for the 6-year term. We have a little time left. I have been at it some 20 years now. We will continue. It takes a little time. But what Justice White stated back in Buckley v. Valeo has come to pass. It has brought us to where the most deliberative body can't deliberate. I retain the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum. Does the other side have any time? Both sides?

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I think we have 5 more minutes. I yield the time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Well, I think we will allocate the time to both sides.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my colleagues all acknowledge the need for more and more money each time we come up for election or get into political campaigns. There has been very little discussion of the actual chase for that money which has corrupted the institution. I hate to say that. When I got here 33 years ago, we would come to work, and Senator Mansfield, the majority leader, would have a vote at 9 o'clock on Monday morning. Senator Byrd did the same thing as majority leader. We would work throughout the week up until 5 o'clock on Friday. Now Mondays and Fridays are gone. We start on the half day on Tuesdays, and then Wednesdays and Thursdays we all want a window. There is no window in the Chamber, but there are plenty of windows. You to have get with the dialog, as they call it up here, and that is for the money chase. We used to have the extended Easter break and the Fourth of July, but now we have not only January gone, there are 10 days in February, March, April, 10 days in May, June, the July break, August, the month off, and we are supposed to go home and get money. If you go to the leader and ask, please call up a bill, it may take 3 or 4 days, he looks at you as if you are loony. Talk about debating, deliberating--this deliberative body has been so corrupted, it can't deliberate. Don't give me this so-called eviscerate the first amendment. Buckley v. Valeo did that. The intent there was that every mother's son, anybody of ordinary means, could offer for the Presidency. What has really happened is that we have taken away the speech of those who are without money. And for those who are millionaires, they can buy the office. In fact, it has stood the intent on its head whereby, instead of forbidding the purchase of the office, we have to buy it. You have to get more money. I hope we will vote for this constitutional amendment which is neutral. It is not pro or con McCain-Feingold or public financing or whatever it is. It gives the people a chance to vote. All you have to do is look to the primaries we have just gotten through. The people are ready, willing, and able to vote and stop this corruption. I thank the Chair.