Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator for his leadership.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to retain a little time here for the closing, but let me go right to the point with respect to the remarks of my distinguished friend from Vermont. We were not part of any agreement. That was another one of those so- called stonewalls. The significant part of the agreement was the two leaders were on it, and the agencies and entities at that time were told that was all they were going to get. You learn in this town to go along with what you can get from the leadership. Don't come down to the floor and say it's a leadership vote, because the leader himself has voted this particular measure out of the Commerce Committee on two occasions. He knows the need of the V-chip being in all sets, 100 percent. Wait a minute. The average person holds onto his or her television set at least, they say in the hearings, between 8, 10, 12 years--or an average of 10 years. So you have a 10- year period here. They are not going to replace all the sets. We know this with the digital television problem we have. In that light, we want to make absolutely sure we do something, as my distinguished friend from North Dakota says, that is consonant, helpful, and a part of the V-chip, if it will work. We have shown how complicated it is. It is going to be a delayed good, if any at all. I retain the remainder of our time.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we include by reference--not printed in the Record of course--the hearings of 1993, 1995, and 1997 which are relevant today. In fact, they have been exacerbated by the events we have not only seen in Colorado, but in Kentucky and Arkansas in the various schools, but more particular, it has supported our case about the industry, the broadcasters, the producers--by Hollywood. Let's understand first the putoff we had and the stonewalling back in 1990 when Senator Paul Simon said: What we have to do really--let's not rush into this. We have been rushing in since 1969. But in 1989 and 1990, we could not rush in, and we had to have a code of conduct. The reason they could not get it was because of the antitrust laws. So we put in an estoppel to the antitrust laws applying to this particular endeavor. We had the standards for depiction of violence and television programs issued by ABC, CBS, and NBC in 1992. Mr. President, this is what the programmers themselves said: However, all depictions of violence should be relevant and necessary to the development of character or to the advancement of theme or plot. Going further: Gratuitous or excessive depictions of violence are not acceptable. Mr. President, that is word for word our amendment. What we try to bar is excessive, gratuitous violence during the family hour. It works in the United Kingdom. It works in Belgium and in Europe. It works down in Australia. It is tried and true and passes constitutional muster. We had this problem develop with respect to indecency. Finally, the Congress acted and we installed in law the authority and responsibility for the Federal Communications Commission to determine the time period of family hour, which has been determined from 6 in the morning to 10 in the evening, and they barred showing of indecency on television in America. That has worked. It was taken to the courts. The lawyers immediately went to work, but the lower court decision has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Attorney General of the United States appeared at our hearing before the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and said she thought it definitely would pass constitutional muster. We also had a plethora of constitutional professors come in. The record is replete. It is not haphazard. Let me quote entertainment industry executives and apologists saying just exactly what we say in our law: Programs should not depict violence as glamourous-- I quote that from their own particular code of conduct-- Realistic depictions of violence should also portray the consequences of that violence to its victims and its perpetrators. That was 1992. Let's find out what they did with the code of conduct. In 1998, there was a study sponsored by the National Cable Television Association. This is one of the most recent authoritative documents on the entire subject. It includes not only the National Parent-Teachers Association, Virginia Markel, the American Bar Association, Michael McCann, the National Education Association, Darlene Chavez, but--listen to this--Belva Davis, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; Charles B. Fitzsimmons, Producers Guild of America; Carl Gotlieb, Writers Guild of America West; Ann Marcus, Caucus for Producers, Writers and Directors; Gene Reynolds, Directors Guild of America. What do they say? I cannot print the entire document in the Record, in deference to economy in Government. I read from the findings on page 29: Much of TV violence is still glamorized. This was their code in 1992. There is no ``glamorized.'' Six years later, they themselves--the producers, the writers, Hollywood itself-- say: Much of TV violence is still glamorized. Good characters are frequently the perpetrators of violence and rarely do they show remorse. Viewers of all ages are more likely to emulate and learn from characters who are perceived as attractive. Across the 3 years of this study, nearly 40 percent of the violent incidents on television are initiated by characters who possess qualities that make them attractive. Heavens above. They prove our case for the amendment. Again reading from the study: Another aspect of glamorization is that physical aggression on television is often condoned. For example, more than one- third of violent programs feature bad characters who are never punished. Therefore, violence that goes unpunished in the shortrun poses serious risk to children. Edgar Bronfman in the morning news said this is not something with the entertainment industry. But it is producers, it is writers, it is guilds, managers in Hollywood. I know if he had been in the liquor business, he would tell him to go on out there and find out what is going on. Reading further from their report: Violent behavior on television is quite serious in nature. Across the 3-year study, more than half of the violent incidents feature physical aggression that would be lethal or incapacitating if it were to occur in real life. In spite of very serious forms of aggression, much of this violence is undermined by humor. At least 40 percent of the violent scenes on television include humor. And on and on, from this particular report. It is really noteworthy that they prove our case. And to come up at this time saying that it does not have any effect, like they said on ``Meet the Press'' on Sunday, they would like to join in another study--and I understand the distinguished manager, the chairman, is going to ask for another study by the Surgeon General; and my distinguished chairman, the Senator from Arizona, he has joined in with the Senator from Connecticut to get another study. Whereas the broadcasters, they know the history of broadcasting. We ought to send them all this three-volume set. I quote from page 23. Writers receive numerous plot instructions. This is back in 1953, 46 years ago. I quote: It has been found that we retain audience interest best when our story is concerned with murder. Therefore, although other crimes may be introduced, somebody must be murdered, preferably early, with the threat of more violence to come. That is how you make money. They can put out all the language just like we do. I guess we are emulating them because we all talk about a surplus, a surplus, a surplus, when we have a deficit. They talk again and again and again how they are against this violence, and yet they continue, under their own study, to spew it out and have a definite effect out there in Colorado. Mr. President, I call my colleagues' attention to Senate Commerce Committee Report on ``Children's Protection From Violent Programming Act,'' S. 363, Report No. 105-89 and the report on the ``Children's Protection From Violent Programming Act of 1995,'' S. 470, Report No. 104-117. Mr. President, let me agree, though, with Mr. Bronfman on this. And I quote Mr. Bronfman from this morning's Washington Post. ``It's unfortunate that the American people, who really look to their government for leadership, instead get finger- pointing and chest-pounding,'' he said. I will read that again, because I agree with him. ``It's unfortunate that the American people, who really look to their government for leadership, instead get finger-pointing and chest-pounding.'' There it is. We are experts at it when we call the $100 billion more we are spending this year on a deficit a surplus. When we say it is a legitimate gun dealer, and you have to have a background check, a waiting period, it has sidelined 60,000 felons. It is working. But yesterday, due to the stonewalling and influence of the NRA, we said no, you can go to a gun show and there is no background check. Can you imagine the Congress that has no shame whatever? I wish I were a lawyer outside practicing. I would take that case immediately up on the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause for the gun dealers and say that is an unconstitutional provision when you do not require it at the gun shows. I would easily win that case. So we are going to set that aside or hope it is brought immediately so we will do away with that. Maybe then they will sober up and we will get enough votes. Here today we are going to be faced again with the same stonewalling. They go down again and again and again, and they will say: There is no problem. We ought to have further studies. There is one other result I want to mention to my distinguished colleagues here in the Senate. I have already put in the 1972 report. But I ask unanimous consent the American Medical Association article ``Television and Violence'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, this amendment is nothing more than reinstituting the family hour or the family viewing period. We had it during the seventies, but we set it aside, just like the distinguished Senator from Nevada was talking about with respect to censoring and making sure these producers and broadcasters don't interfere with the creative impulses of a writer or a producer in Hollywood. But when it comes to the bottom line, they change that around. That is what we have, and it is very, very difficult to make an overwhelming case. We are again facing the same stonewalling that we viewed Sunday on ``Meet the Press,'' when the representative of the Motion Picture Association, who has been doing this for 30-some years, said he did not know the effect of TV violence on children and asked for another study. We pointed out, of course, that is the way we started with Senator Pastore, back in 1969, 30 years ago, and that is when we had the Surgeon General's study. It has become worse and worse and worse over the years. Again this morning, in the Washington Post, an article says: ``Movie Mogul Defends Hollywood.'' Mr. Edgar Bronfman states: Violence ``is not an entertainment problem''. . . . Mr. President, all we have to do is go to the May 3 issue of Newsweek. I ask unanimous consent to print the article, ``Loitering on the Dark Side'' in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. It says: Hollywood is also a fat target. Oliver Stone's lyric depiction of random murder (rabidly viewed by the Columbine killers) to stylish slaughter in ``The Matrix,'' violence is the main course on our entertainment menu. I ask unanimous consent that a Time magazine article, again this month, entitled ``Bang, You're Dead,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reading one sentence: Sift through teen movies of the past 10 years, and you could create a hindsight game plan for Littleton. Another interesting article, ``Gunning for Hollywood,'' appeared in U.S. News & World Report on May 10. I ask unanimous consent that the column by John Leo be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am limited in time so I am going along: Following the introduction of television in the United States, the annual white homicide rate increased by 93 percent from 1945 to 1974. In Canada during that same period, the homicide rate increased 92 percent. This is really the clincher, Mr. President: In South Africa, where television was not introduced until 1975, the white homicide rate decreased 7 percent between 1943 and 1974; but by 1987, 12 years after television was introduced in South Africa, the white homicide rate there had increased by 130 percent. Mr. Bronfman says it has nothing to do with television. Come on. Give us a break. For those who come around now and say: We are going to have content, V-chip, and everything else, and we want everything else, we have the content, we all agree--we did not all agree. In fact, NBC, the premium television network, they didn't agree to a content-based rating system; it is voluntary. They said: I do not agree with that, and we are not going to do it. And they do not do it. But they are talking about content. BET, Black Entertainment Television, another responsible network group, said: We are not going along with that. But let's see what the Kaiser Family Foundation found out since they have put in now, for a couple years, the so-called content rating system. A 1999 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 79 percent of shows with moderate levels of violence do not receive the content descriptor ``V'' for violence. Of course, NBC and BET do not go along with it. There is the program, ``Walker, Texas Ranger,'' which appears on the USA cable channel at 8 p.m. in the Washington, DC, area. It included the stabbing of two guards on a bus, an assault on a church by escaped convicts who take people hostage and threaten to rape a nun, and an episode ending where one escapee is shot and another is beaten unconscious. But the show did not receive the content descriptor ``V'' for violence. This is all in the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation study. The Kaiser study also found that no programs rated TV-G receive a ``V'' rating for violence. Moreover, 81 percent of the children's programming containing violence did not even receive the ``FV'' rating for fantasy violence. And then a question. Let me quote this one: The bottom line is clear. This is from the Kaiser report: Parents cannot rely on the content descriptors as currently employed to block all shows containing violence. There is still a significant amount of moderate to high-level violence in shows without content descriptors. And with respect to children's programming, the failure to use the ``V'' descriptor and the rare use of the ``FV'' descriptor leads to the conclusion that there is no effective way for parents to block out all children's shows containing violence, V-chip or no V-chip. Then finally the Kaiser Family Foundation study says: Children would still be woefully unprotected from television violence because content rating V is rarely used. So much for: Content, content; give it time; give it time to work; and everything else like that. They have no idea of that working. What about the V-chip? If you want to really spend an afternoon and tomorrow, try to toy with this one. I have a V-chip in my hand. I hold it up. You can get them there at Circuit City for $90. Who is going to spend the time to learn how to use this? Well, they are not. And 70 percent of those polled who use the rating system say they will not buy a V-chip. They are going to trust the children. How are you going to go through the average home that has three sets? Can't you see that mother in the morning chasing around--she has 64 channels in Washington. It is all voluntary; it is not required. She does not know which channel is which. She has this thing. And, wait a minute, she has her 18 pages of instructions. So she chases around from the kitchen to the bedroom, down to the children's room, and she has the 64 programs, and she has her 18 pages of instructions, and it is complicated because they do not want the children to be able to work it. Well, by gosh, they have succeeded with me. I don't know how to work it. We tried yesterday afternoon when we had a little time. We are going to work on it some more. But I bet you my boots that my grandchildren will learn quicker than I. I can tell you that right now. They will know how to work this blooming thing. It is not going to happen. That was another sop in the 1996 telecommunications act. Those on the House side wanted the V-chip. It was another putoff, another stonewall. We knew it was impractical. We know it is easier to trust your children than to go through this charade and this expense and race around and try to figure out all of these things. When you have a dial on there, just turn that off. You don't need a chip. Just turn it off. Tell the children they cannot use it. Well, you say, the children are going to do it anyway. I tell you the truth, with all these rating things, if I was a kid and found out that something was naughty and it was rated where I couldn't see it, just being a child, I would say, well, wait a minute, we are going to go to Johnny's house. My parents got me, but there is nobody home at Johnny's. We'll see this thing. I mean, you really induce, excite, interest children with the rating system. It is counterproductive to begin with. But then the V-chip they talk about is just next to impossible. Let us go to the constitutional question, Mr. President. It is not the least restrictive. The family hour is the least restrictive. Under the court decisions with respect to this interference on free speech, it is not that we have an overwhelming public interest established, which we have in the record, but it has to be the least restrictive. The least restrictive, of course, is that that has been tried and true, the family hour approach that we have now submitted in the amendment. I hope they have enough pride to go along with what they have all voted. We voted this out in 1995, with only one dissenting vote. We voted it out in 1997, with one dissenting vote. I remember in 1995, the distinguished majority leader then, Senator Dole of Kansas, he went out there and he gave Hollywood--I hate to use the word ``hell,'' but that is what it is; that is what the newspapers said. He came back on the floor all charged up. So I went to him and I said: Bob, I got the bill in. It is on the calendar. You put your name on it, if there is some interest in the authorship or whatever it is, or make any little changes you want to make. I am trying to get something done. I have been trying with John Pastore since 1969, 30 years now, to get something done, get a vote. I said: Let's go ahead with it. But, no, no, the overwhelming influence of Hollywood, it stops us in our tracks. The overwhelming influence of the NRA, it stops us in our tracks. I agree with Mr. Bronfman. Mr. Bronfman is right on target: It is unfortunate when the American people, who really look to their government for leadership, they don't find it, because they are bought and sold. It is a tragic thing. You cannot get anything done around here. I have got a one-line amendment to the Constitution to get rid of this cancer: The Congress of the United States is hereby empowered to regulate or control spending in Federal elections. With that one line we go back to the 1974 act. We limit spending per voter. No cash; everything on top of the table; no soft money. One line says we can go back. We passed it in a bipartisan fashion back in the 1974 act, almost 25 years ago. We were like a dog chasing its tail. But if we don't get rid of that cancer, you are not going to get any Congress. This Congress, instead of responding to the needs of the people with respect to spending and paying the bill in the budget, with responding to the gun violence around here where we take legitimate dealers and say you have to have a background, but the illegitimate shows, you say, yesterday afternoon, forget about it, and where today they want to move to table an amendment that works in England and Europe, down under, New Zealand, Australia and everything else. Why not? Because we want that support from out there with that group. Of course, I think they own the magazines, the broadcasters, the Internet; they own each other. I can't keep up with the morning paper, who owns everything, but they are all owning each other. There is a tremendous, overwhelming influence for money, money, money. It is tragic, but it is true. We have to sober up here and start passing some good legislation that people have been crying out for--the Parent-Teacher Association, National Education Association, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, with the 18 hearings that we have had, 300 formative studies, over 1,000 different articles. Yet they say, well, wait a minute, that is on content. Let's see with the V-chip that is coming in July. They know it is a stonewall. Mr. President, I yield such time as necessary to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Mr. Leo's column cites that TV violence has a definite effect on children. Turning to the New Republic of May 17, Gregg Easterbrook in the New Republic wrote another relevant article entitled, ``Watch and Learn.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield such time as necessary to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair. I will read just one sentence, being limited in time here. All depictions of violence should be relevant and necessary to the development of character or to the advancement of theme or plot. Mr. President, that is exactly what we have in the law. We have the opponents agreeing to this particular amendment. Of course not. They will have Members move to table the amendment. I am trying to plead for favorable consideration. All we are doing is what the industry--ABC, CBS, NBC--issued to themselves in their own code of conduct. I read: Gratuitous or excessive depictions of violence are not acceptable. Exactly what we are saying in this amendment. Again I read: Programs should not depict violence as glamorous. That is exactly what we found last year in the National Television Violence Study. This study is too voluminous to print in the Record. It is what they found in the cable TV-sponsored study with the most outstanding authorities imaginable conducting this study. Various campuses were represented, as I recall. Included were the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the National Cable Television Association, the American Psychiatric Association, Producers Guild of America, American Sociological Association, the Caucus for Producers and Writers, the American Bar Association. They say it is too glamorous. I ask unanimous consent to have those names in support printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. As I understand it from the managers of the bill, on the 3-hour agreement, we are to be allocated 1\1/2\ hours per side, with me introducing the particular amendment tonight and using a half hour. I ask the Chair to call my hand at 15 minutes, because I have divided that time with the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate that very much. Mr. President, this is a historic moment for this Senator and the Senate in that I hearken back to 1969, 30 years ago, when the senior Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Pastore, raised the question of violence on television and the deleterious effect it had on children and their particular conduct. After much wrangling and debate, it was forestalled for what? A Surgeon General's report. Mind you me, this is 30 years ago. I say ``historic'' because the stonewalling has been going on for 30 years. Mr. President, I refer to the Sunday program of ``Meet the Press'' when my distinguished friend, Mr. Jack Valenti of the Motion Pictures Association, was being interviewed by Tim Russert. I refer exactly to Mr. Russert's question: Do you believe that movies can create a sense of violence in people and force them to imitate or copy what they see on the screen, particularly children? In response, Mr. Valenti said: The answer is I don't know. This is why I've supported Senator Joe Lieberman's call for the surgeon general to do an in-depth analysis to find out the ``why'' of violence. Thereupon, of course, my distinguished friend, Mr. Valenti, went into his dog and pony show of the church, the home, and the school. Now, there it is, Mr. President. For 30 years, we have been trying to get a measure of this kind up, and it was reported out with only one dissenting vote from the Commerce Committee in the congressional session before last, and again with only one dissenting vote, in a bipartisan fashion, in the last Congress. But we couldn't get it up because they have been very clever about their opposition, their stonewalling, their put-off. Right to the point, Mr. President, we have done everything possible to show that this particular amendment would pass constitutional muster with all the hearings. There have been some 18 sets of hearings in the Commerce Committee over the 30-year period, with the support of the Parent-Teacher Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and different other ones, according to this kind of action, with the industry putting in its report, with the cable television people sponsoring it, and finding the same conclusion in here just last year--and with, of all things, the put-off that we had under the leadership of Senator Paul Simon of Illinois. He said the industry ought to be able to get together. But they couldn't on account of the antitrust laws. He wanted to lapse those antitrust laws for a period of time so they could get together and form a code of conduct. They issued that code of conduct. Of all things, Mr. President, they have been ever since in violation of it. But I want to refer to the bill itself, and exactly what it does in the sense of having a precedent set, and the idea of TV indecency. We had indecency on TV. It was bothersome to all of the colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We passed a law that the FCC should determine indecency and call the stations' hands if they saw that being violated. Obviously, that thing was taken up immediately under the First Amendment of the Constitution and in the Supreme Court. They found it constitutional. Incidentally, in the hearings that we had back a few years ago, we had none other than Attorney General Reno attest to the fact that this particular amendment that I now submit would pass constitutional muster. The amendment prohibits the distribution of violent video programming during the hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience. That is tried and true. We know in the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, countries in Europe, and down under in Australia, that they have had this safe harbor during a period of time, say, from 9 in the morning until 9 in the evening. I think under the indecency one, it is from 6 in the morning until 10 in the evening. But it is to be determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Under that safe harbor, they are not shooting each other in the schools in Europe. They are not shooting each other in the schools in Australia. It is tried and true. It has been working. And the issue has been taken up to the highest court and found constitutional. The FCC is required to define ``violent programming'' and determine the appropriate timeframe for the safe harbor. The bill permits the FCC to exempt news and sports programming from the safe harbor, as well as premium and pay-per-view cable programming. Incidentally, the emphasis is on gratuitous--excessive, gratuitous violence. Obviously, with the Civil War series, with ``Saving Private Ryan,'' they are going to require a showing of violence for the authenticity of the film itself. That is not what we are really concerned with. Those are educational, and everyone should know about them, including children. But we are talking about gratuitous violence not being necessary, and even excessive gratuitous violence. We have legislated in the matter of public interest, after hearings in all of these committees. We have the most restrictive application under the decisions of the Court with respect to the FCC making its findings. Violators of the prohibition would be fined up to $25,000 for each violation on each day on which a violation occurs. The FCC would revoke the licenses of repeat violators of this prohibition. In considering license renewals, the FCC would consider a licensee's record of compliance with the legislation. Why, Mr. President, the big objection? We go back. I counsel my friend, Mr. Valenti, to get the three-volume set of ``The History of Broadcasting of the United States,'' the Oxford Press. I will turn to that first chapter talking about, in 1953, where we had the film ``Man Against Crime.'' I read from page 23, a quote that the writers received for this plot instruction. I think it is very, very important that everybody pay attention to this one. I quote: It has been found that we retain audience interest best when our story is concerned with murder. Therefore, although other crimes may be introduced, somebody must be murdered, preferably early, with the threat of more violence to come. Could there be any better evidence than their writing of their own history of broadcasting to say: Look, the issue here is money. As long as it is going to be supported and, more so, supported with violence, then more money is made. And let's get up to the Congress. I sort of became amused about these term limitations. We have up here. I am in my 33rd year. We are finally getting the measure that Senator Pastore had in mind when he was put off with the Surgeon General study, which was formulated finally in 1972. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the summary of that Surgeon General report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand in the debate on this particular amendment I can have a V-chip device. I ask unanimous consent that I may have that on the floor during the debate.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, a reading of that report will show a definite causal connection between TV violence and aggressive behavior on the part of children. Time and time again it was shown. But let me go to the next put-off that we had with my good friend, Senator Paul Simon. I knew they had somebody to stop me here in the early 1990s. He got his measure passed. So we couldn't get our bill up for a vote. We had then a finding of standards for the ``Depiction of Violence in Television Programming'' issued by ABC, CBS, and NBC in December 1992. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, early on in this decade The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina was challenged and lost the fight for the admission of women to the Corps of Cadets. It was a stormy event, but on Saturday last with dignity and prestige the first woman cadet, Nancy Mace, a gold star honor student, was graduated. The commentator, Pat Buchanan, rendered the graduation address. It was a challenge not only to the graduating class, but for the Nation as well. I ask that the Buchanan address be printed now in the Record. The address follows: A Republic, Not an Empire (By Patrick J. Buchanan) General Grinalds, distinguished guests, and friends of the Citadel. It is truly an honor to address this last graduating class of the 20th century--and a truly unique class it is, of an institution whose name is synonymous with patriotism, courage, and a code of honor. I must tell you, I was profoundly moved by yesterday's parade, and the Scottish bagpipes playing ``Auld Lang Zyne'' to the Class of '99. I was moved, in part, because we Buchanans are of Scotch ancestry. Indeed, an historian once told me the Buchanans were a Highland warrior clan that had fought at Agincourt, where England's Henry V achieved immortality. And as I was basking in the reflected glory of my ancestors, however, the historian added, ``Unfortunately, Pat, the Buchanans all fought on the side of the French.'' Now, as my two great grandfathers on the Buchanan side were from Mississippi, and fought with the Confederacy, we Buchanans have an established tradition of Lost Causes. Unfortunately, in 1992 and 1996, I made my own contributions to that family tradition. My wife Shelley tells me that if I don't win this time, she is going to pack it in--and run for the Senate from New York. This is not my first trip to the Citadel; in 1995, I was invited to address the student body in its lecture series on the great issues of the day. On the bookshelf in my living room, if you come to visit, you will find in a place of honor what is known as the Brick--a miniature replica of the original Citadel. Friends of the Citadel, we live in an age of self- indulgence where the values embodied in your code of honor-- ``A cadet does not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do,'' are considered by some to be out of fashion. But all over this troubled country of ours, people hunger for a restoration of the values which I believe will soon be both relevant and respected again. For this country is not only about to cross over into a new century, we are entering upon a new and potentially dangerous decade. Indeed, as this era that the historians have already designated ``the American Century,'' approaches an end, it may be instructive to look back to the close of the 19th century, when the British empire was the world's preeminent power. For the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, Rudyard Kipling was asked to pen some verses to the greatness and glory of his nation. As he wrote of Britannia's ``(d)ominion over palm and pine,'' Kipling struck a note of unease, of apprehension, that the mighty empire on which the sun never set might itself also pass away. Let me recite a few lines from his poem ``Recessional'': ``Far-called our navies melt away-- On dune and headland sinks the fire-- Lo, all our pomp of yesterday Is one with Nineveh and Tyre! Judge of the Nations, spare us yet, Lest we forget, lest we forget.'' Kipling proved prophetic. In two decades, the British empire was fighting for its life on the fields of France. In half a century, that empire had vanished from the earth. And so it was with all the great nations that had strode so confidently onto the world's stage at the start of this bloodiest of centuries--all except America. The Austro- Hungarian, German, Russian, and Ottoman empires perished in World War I. Japan's was destroyed in World War II; the British and French expired soon after. When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, in that triumph of human freedom and American perseverance, the empire of Lenin and Stalin collapsed, leaving the United States as the world's sole superpower. In the phrase of our foreign policy elite, we have become the world's ``indispensable nation.'' But it is just such hubristic rhetoric that calls forth apprehension, for it reflects a pride that all too often precedes a great fall. Long ago, Teddy Roosevelt admonished us: ``Speak softly and carry a big stick.'' Today, we have whittled down the stick, even as we raised the decibel count. My apprehension is traceable, too, to a belief that our republic has begun to retrace, step by step, the march of folly that led to the fall of the British and every other great empire. Today, America has become ensnared in a civil war in a Balkan peninsula where no U.S. army ever fought before, and no president ever asserted a vital interest. Daily, we plunge more deeply in. Our motives were noble--to protect an abused people--but most now concede that we failed to weigh the risks of launching this war. Among the lessons America should have learned from Vietnam, said General Colin Powell, is that before you commit the army, you must first commit the nation. We did not do that. Now, it is said that as the credibility of NATO cannot survive defiance by tiny Serbia, we must do whatever needs to be done to win, even if it means ordering 100,000 U.S. ground troops into the Balkans. This sentiment was expressed by a columnist at the New York Times: ``It should be lights out in Belgrade; every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road . . . has to be targeted. Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation . . . and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set you back by pulverizing you. You want 1950. We can do 1950. You want 1389. We can do 1389 too.'' One cannot read that passage without recalling to mind the phrase, ``the arrogance of power.'' Now, Milosevic is a tyrant and a war criminal. But does America have the right to ``pulverize'' a nation that never attacked the United States? Did the Founding Fathers dedicate their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the cause of liberty, so that the republic they would create could emulate the empire they overthrew? Is it America's destiny to be the policemen of the world? In his Farewell Address, our greatest president implored us to stay out of Europe's endless quarrels: ``Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?'' Washington asked. ``Why . . . entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour, or Caprice?'' When the Greeks rose in rebellion against the Ottoman Turks in a Balkan war, John Quincy Adams, our greatest Secretary of State advocated America's non-intervention. ``Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled,'' said Adams, ``there will [America's] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.'' Now that America is at war, all of us pray for the success and safe return of the men and women we have sent into battle. They are some of the best and bravest of our young. And no matter our disagreements, those are our sons and our daughters out there. But all of us, as citizens of a republic, must debate the decisions as to when, where, and whether to put their lives at risk. This Balkan war is not the first time America has heard the siren's call to empire. A century ago, we heeded it, and annexed the Philippines. In the fall of 1898, leaders from Grover Cleveland to Sam Gompers implored us to resist the temptation. ``The fruits of imperialism, be they bitter or sweet,'' said William Jennings Bryan, ``must be left to the subjects of monarchy. This is one tree of which citizens of a republic may not partake. It is the voice of the serpent, not the voice of God, that bids us eat.'' America did not listen. And hard upon the annexation of the Philippines came the declaration of an Open Door policy in China, that plunged us into the politics of Asia, out of which would come war with Japan, war in Korea, and war in Vietnam. Today, this generation is facing the same question. Quo vadis, America? Whither goest thou, America? Will we conscript America's wealth and power to launch utopian crusades to reshape the world in America's image? Or shall we again follow the counsel of Washington and Adams, and keep our lamp burning bright on the Western shore? Every citizen needs to take part in deciding the destiny of this republic, for we have now undertaken foreign commitments that no empire in history has ever sustained. We have assumed the role of German empire in keeping Russia out of Europe, of the Austrian empire in policing the Balkans, of the Ottoman empire in keeping peace in the Middle East, of the Japanese empire in containing China, of the British empire in patrolling the Gulf and maintaining freedom of the seas. How long can America continue to defend scores of countries around the world on a defense budget that has fallen to the smallest share of the U.S. economy since before Pearl Harbor? As we see a limited air war in the Balkans stretch U.S. power to where F-16s are cannibalized for spare parts, our Air Force runs low on laser-guided munitions, our Apache helicopters take weeks to be deployed, and our Pacific fleet is stripped of carriers, it is clear: The long neglect of America's military must come to an end. We must restore this nation's military power, or we are headed for humiliations such as have marked the fall of every great nation that has ever embarked on the imperial course we now pursue. America must retrench; and America must rearm. To make up for this lost decade, let us restore America's defenses to what they were when the decade began. Let us make our country, again, invincible on land, sea, and air, and build the missile defense that a great president, Ronald Reagan, sought as his legacy to America. To be prepared for war, Washington reminded us, is the best guarantee of preserving peace. But if there is cause for apprehension over what lies ahead, there is also cause for confidence and hope. That confidence, that hope, rests not only on the boundless resources of this providential land, but on the almost infinite capacity of the American people to rise and overcome any challenge with which history confronts them. We, after all, are the heirs of the heroes who launched the world's first revolution for liberty. We are the sons and daughters of the great generation that brought us through the Depression and crushed fascism in Europe and Asia. We are the men and women who persevered and triumphed in a half century of Cold wAr against the most monstrous tyranny mankind has ever known. Now the time of testing is coming for you. The America that this Class of '99 shall inherit is rich and prosperous and powerful, but also envied and resented. And whether America retains into this new century what she carries out of this old on, depends now on your generation. Fifty years from now, at the end of your lives, you will look back, and say one of two things: Yes, we, too, made our contribution to the preservation of the greatest republic the world has ever seen. Or you will say that it was during your custodianship that the lamp began to flicker, that we began to follow inexorably in the footsteps of all the other great nations, down the staircase of history. All, then, will come to depend on the character, and courage of this generation, for, as Churchill said, courage is the greatest of all virtues, because it alone makes all the others possible. Last night at dinner, General Grinald's wife told me that when members of the graduating classes are asked what they will take away from the Citadel, almost invariably they say, ``After going through the Citadel, I believe that I can do anything.'' That is the spirit the Citadel instills, and that is the spirit America needs. Because you have gone through this Citadel that has always cherished duty, honor and country, you are more prepared than most of your generation for what lies ahead. And the debt you owe the Citadel, the debt you owe your parents, the debt you owe your teachers, and all those who have gone before, is to be able to say, at the end of your lives: We, too, were faithful to the Citadel; we, too, did our duty; we, too, gave over to our children and their children the greatest country the world has ever known. God bless the Citadel, and God bless the Class of '99.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my esteemed colleague, the Senator from Delaware, on his 10,000th vote in the Senate. This is a tremendous milestone which few Senators ever reach. For our colleague to reach it at the young age of 56 is even more impressive. I am proud and fortunate to count Senator Biden as one of my best friends. Since he came into the Senate in 1972, we have worked together, learned from each other, and swapped stories. One story I recall in particular is that Senator Biden used to practice ``speechifying,'' as some of our predecessors in the Senate would have said, in front of his classmates to overcome a stuttering problem. Well, Mr. President, I think we all will agree that he has overcome that problem quite nicely and has learned to excel at speechifying. One of the most amazing facts of Senator Biden's career is that he was elected to this body at the ripe old age of 29. His 27 year-old sister was his campaign manager, and he saved mailing costs by having volunteers hand-deliver campaign literature to every house in the state. Of course, Senator Biden's campaigns are run a little more professionally now, but he has not lost touch with the people of his state. In fact, the Senator from Delaware has told me stories about virtually every town in his state, no matter how small. He is as familiar with his constituents and as concerned with their needs as any Senator I have known. Of course, his devotion to his constituents has not prevented Senator Biden from playing a sometimes crucial role on national stage. As we all know, Mr. President, he presided over two of the most controversial Judiciary Committee hearings for Supreme Court nominees in American history: those for Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas. Senator Biden was one of the foremost proponents of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Last year, he led the successful effort to expand NATO. In 1997, he led the successful effort to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. Today, the Senator from Delaware continues to take an active interest in events in the Balkans, the Middle East, and Asia, and as Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee, he remains an outspoken voice on foreign policy matters. Senator Biden has been a leader also in the fight to protect women from violence. He authored the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which was signed into law in September 1994. This act, which included the landmark Violence Against Women Act, was the first comprehensive law to address gender-based crimes. The desire to prevent crime and help crime's victims has long been one of the guiding lights of our esteemed colleague's career. In 1984, he co-authored the Victims of Crime Act, which provides hundreds of millions of dollars to crime victims each year, paid for by criminals. Senator Biden was the lead sponsor of the Juvenile Justice Prevention Act of 1974 and the Juvenile Justice Prevention Amendments of 1992, which provided states with federal grants for a comprehensive approach to preventing juvenile crime and improving the juvenile justice system. And in 1996, Senator Biden led the floor fight to restore 1996 appropriations to fund crime bill initiatives, most notably the Community Oriented Policing Services program to help local and state governments hire more police. The Senator from Delaware has long been a leader on Women's Health issues. He sponsored the Medicare Mammography Screening Expansion Act, which became law as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1998. For five years running now, he has authored the annual National Mammography Day. And, in 1998, the President signed into law a bill co-sponsored by Senator Biden, which required the creation of a breast cancer postage stamp, with proceeds from the stamp's sale going to breast cancer research. Like many of his colleagues, the Senator from Delaware has had to triumph over adversity to attain his many professional achievements. The hardships faced and overcome by my dear friend and colleague include the injury of his sons and the death of his beloved first wife and infant daughter in an auto accident shortly after his election to the Senate in 1972, and his own recovery from two operations for a near-fatal brain aneurysm in 1988. Despite this tragedy and adversity, Senator Biden has never succumbed to pessimism or forgotten his role as a public servant. He has never ceased working to serve his state and his nation. He remains optimistic about America's future and his ability, working within the Senate, to improve his state and nation. The Senator from Delaware has called serving in the Senate the greatest, most privileged post-graduate education in America. I think all of us will agree, Mr. President, that he has passed this education with flying colors. There is no more devoted, hard-working member of this body than Senator Biden. He is known for his integrity, bipartisan collegiality, and desire to serve the public good. These qualities will always be cherished in this body, as in all walks of life. For any young Americans seeking a public figure to emulate, I can think of no better role model than the Senator from Delaware. And that, Mr. President, is the greatest compliment I can think to pay my dear friend, Senator Biden. For 27 years, it has been my great honor and pleasure to serve with him and to count him as a friend. It gives me great pleasure to know that before he leaves this great institution, Senator Biden almost certainly will receive accolades on the casting of his 20,000th vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I join in the felicitations of our distinguished colleague from Delaware. He suffered as a young lad a handicap of stuttering. He tried to overcome that by addressing the student body. We in the Senate can well attest to the fact that he has overcome it. He has led the way in foreign policy for NATO and in judicial matters. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is with pleasure that I join Chairman McCain and Senators Hutchison and Inouye to introduce the Maritime Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. This legislation is critical for the continuation of a modern commercial fleet owned and operated by U.S. citizens and crewed by American seafarers. It also ensures America's economic competitiveness and national security. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) reauthorization continues very important programs, and is a much broader piece of legislation than in past years. For example, it provides the funding for the Title XI Loan Guarantee Program, a truly national and international program. Title XI shipowners, their operation and their supplier base, cover almost every state in this country. Title XI has been vital in assisting our shipyards in competing internationally. U.S. shipyards are attracting foreign interests and winning orders for many vessel types. The bill also contains technical amendments to the Title XI program which will save time and money for both the Government and those applying for a loan guarantee. It also provides the funds for the operation of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, New York and continuing assistance to six State maritime academies. These students are the future of country and our merchant marine. This bill also recognizes the importance of the merchant marine to our national security by its support for the recently-enacted Maritime Security Program (MSP), a modern commercial fleet available to provide critical support to the Department of Defense during war or national emergency. This year's reauthorization also contains provisions which aim to strengthen our U.S.-flag fleet through a much needed infusion of new tonnage by eliminating the three-year wait that a newly-registered bulk or breakbulk vessel must currently wait to carry preference cargo. This opportunity, which would end in one year or upon enactment of the OECD Shipbuilding Agreement, would not just improve the vessel profile of this fleet, but also add U.S. jobs> Vessels allowed to enter the preference trade would be required to perform shipyard repairs and other work necessary to bring them up to U.S.-flag standards in our own U.S. shipyards. Funding is also provided for two new programs, enacted by the last Congress. Under the American Fisheries Act, MARAD will determine compliance with citizenship standards for certain fishing vessels, assisting in proper management and conservation of an important natural resource of our country. The agency is also developing a uniform process for the administrative waiver of the U.S.-built requirement for participation in the Jones Act trade for certain small passenger vessels, so that specific legislation need not be sought each time such a waiver is needed. Mr. President, MARAD's FY 2000 budget recognizes the importance of sealift readiness and a strong U.S.-flag fleet. It acknowledges the need for a healthy shipbuilding industry and also provides for the education of our youth. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oceans Act of 1999, legislation that the Senate unanimously passed in November 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators Stevens, Kerry, Breaux, Inouye, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Lautenberg, Akaka, Murkowski, Thurmond, Murray, Cleland, and Wyden. Mr. President, plainly and simply, this bill calls for a plan of action for the twenty-first century to explore, protect, and use our oceans and coasts through the coming millennium. This is not the first time we have faced the need for a national ocean policy. Three decades ago, our Nation roared into space, investing tens of billions of dollars to investigate the moon and the Sea of Tranquility. During that golden era of science, some of us also recognized the importance of exploring the seas 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. That legislation laid the foundation for U.S. ocean and coastal policy and programs and has guided their development for three decades. I was elected to the Senate just three months after the 1966 Act was enacted into law, but I am pleased that both Senators Inouye and Kennedy, the two cosponsors of the 1966 Act still serving in the Senate, have agreed to join me today in introducing the Oceans Act. One of the central elements of the 1966 Act was establishment of a presidential commission to develop a plan for national action in the oceans and atmosphere. Dr. Julius A. Stratton, a former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then-chairman of the Ford Foundation, led the Commission on an unprecedented, and since unrepeated, investigation of this nation's relationship with the oceans and the atmosphere. The Stratton Commission and its congressional advisors (including Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Norris Cotton) worked together in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, the Commission was established and carried out its mandate in the Democratic Administration of Lyndon Johnson and saw its findings implemented by the Republicans under President Richard Nixon. With a staff of 35 people, the commissioners hear and consulted over 1,000 people, visited every coastal area of this country, and submitted some 126 recommendations in a 1969 report to Congress entitled Our Nation and the Sea. Those recommendations led directly to the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970, laid the groundwork for enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972, and established priorities for federal ocean activities that have guided this Nation for almost thirty years. While the Stratton Commission performed its job with vision and integrity, the world has changed since 1966. Today, half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of our shores and more than 30 percent of the Gross Domestic Product is generated in the coastal zone. Ocean and coastal resources once considered inexhaustible are severely depleted, and wetlands and other marine habitats are threatened by pollution and human activities. In addition, the U.S. regulatory and legal framework has developed over the years with the passage of a number of statutes in addition to CZMA. These include the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and the Oil Pollution Act. It is time to conduct a review that looks at coordination and duplication of programs and policies developed under these laws. Today people who work and live on the water face a patchwork of confusing and sometimes contradictory federal and state regulations. This bill would allow us to reduce conflicts while maintaining environmental and health safeguards. One illustration of the type of situation that must be corrected is the southeast shrimp trawl fishery. Shrimpers are required under the Endangered Species Act to use panels or grates (known as turtle excluder devices or TEDs) in their nets to protect endangered sea turtles. The panels also reduce catches of small fish (bycatch), a new requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Unfortunately, however, the government has approved one TED for turtle protection and another for bycatch reduction--forcing the fishermen to use two separate devices, cut two holes in their nets, and double their shrimp loss. Anyone who wonders about public interest in regulatory reform has only to talk to a McClellanville, SC shrimper. The Oceans Act is vital to the continued health of the oceans and prosperity of our coasts. It is patterned after and would replace the 1966 Act. Like that Act, it is comprised of three major elements: First, the bill calls for development and implementation of a coherent national ocean and coastal policy to conserve and sustainably use fisheries and other ocean and coastal resources, protect the marine environment and human safety, explore ocean frontiers, create marine technologies and economic opportunities, and preserve U.S. leadership on ocean and coastal issues. Second, the bill 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. Commission members would be drawn from State and local governments, industry, academic and technical institutions, and public interest organizations involved in ocean and coastal activities. In developing its recommendations, the Commission would assess federal programs and funding priorities, ocean-related infrastructure requirements, conflicts among marine users, and technological opportunities. The bill authorizes appropriations of $6 million over two years to support Commission activities; last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill included $3.5 million to fund such a Commission. Third, the bill would create a high-level federal interagency Council that would include the heads of the Departments of Commerce, Navy, State, Transportation, and the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the National Economic Council. This Council would advise the President and serve as a forum for developing and implementing an ocean and coastal policy, provide for coordination of federal budgets and programs, and work with non-federal and international organizations. By establishing an action plan for ocean and coastal activities, the Oceans Act should also contribute substantially to national goals and objectives in the areas of education and research, economic development, and public safety. With respect to education and research, our view of the oceans thirty years ago was based on a remarkably small amount of information. When Jack Kennedy was in the White House, we were just beginning to develop the capability for exploring the oceans, and the driving factor was the military need to hide our submarines from the Soviets during the Cold War. What we knew of the oceans at that time was based as much on what fishermen brought up in their nets as it was on reliable scientific investigation. Nowhere is the need for U.S. leadership more evident than in the area of ocean exploration. Today, we still have explored only a tiny fraction of the sea, but with the use of new technologies what we have found is truly incredible. For example, hydrothermal vents, hot water geysers on the deep ocean floor, were discovered just 20 years ago by oceanographers trying to understand the formation of the earth's crust. Now this discovery had led to the identification of nearly 300 new types of marine animals with untold pharmaceutical and biomedical potential. In recent years, scientists from 19 nations have joined in an international partnership, headed by Admiral Watkins, to explore the history and structure of the Earth beneath the oceans basins. Their ship, the Resolution, is the world's largest scientific research vessel and can drill in water depths of up 8,200 meters. Over the past 12 years, it has recovered more than 115 miles of core samples through the world oceans. Recently ship scientists worked off the coast of South Carolina collecting new evidence of a large meteor that struck the Earth 65 million years ago, and is thought to have triggered climate change that may be linked to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Many of our marine research efforts could have profound impacts on our economic well-being. For example, research on coastal ocean currents and other processes that affect shoreline erosion is critical to effective management of the shoreline. Oceanographers are working with federal, state, and local managers to use this new understanding in protecting beachfront property and the lives of those who reside and work in coastal communities. Development of underwater cameras and sonar, begun in the 1940s for the U.S. Navy, has led to major strides not only for military uses, but for marine archaeologists and scientists exploring unknown stretches of sea floor. Consumers have benefited from the technology now used in video cameras. Sonar has broad applications in both the military and commercial sector. Finally, marine biotechnology research is thought to be one of the greatest remaining technological and industrial frontiers. Among the opportunities which it may offer are to: restore and protect marine ecosystems; monitor human health and treat disease; increase food supplies through aquaculture; enhance seafood safety and quality; provide new types and sources of industrial materials and processes; and understand biological and geochemical processes in the world ocean. In addition to the economic opportunities offered by our marine research investment, traditional marine activities play an important role in our national economic outlook. Ninety-five percent of our international trade is shipped on the ocean. In 1996, commercial fishermen in the United States landed almost 10 billion pounds of fish with a value of $3.5 billion. Their fishing-related activities contributed over $42 billion to the U.S. economy. During the same period, marine anglers contributed another $20 billion. Travel and tourism also contribute over $700 billion to our economy, much of which is generated in coastal areas. With a sound national ocean and coastal policy and effective marine resource management, these numbers have nowhere to go but up. With respect to public safety, it is particularly important to develop ocean and coastal priorities that reflect the changes we have seen in recent years. Before World War II, most of the U.S. shoreline was sparsely populated. There were long, wild stretches of coast, dotted with an occasional port city, fishing village, or sleepy resort. Most barrier islands had few residents or were uninhabited. After the war, people began pouring in, and coastal development began a period of explosive growth. In my state of South Carolina, our beaches attract millions of visitors every year, and more and more people are choosing to move to the coast--making the coastal counties the fastest growing ones in the state. Seventeen of the twenty fastest growing states in the nation are coastal states--which compounds the situation that the most densely populated regions already border the ocean. With population growth comes the demand for highways, shopping centers, schools, and sewers that permanently alter the landscape. If people are to continue to live and work on the coast, we must do a better job of planning how we impact the very regions in which we all want to live. There is no better example of how our ocean and coastal policies affect public safety, than to look at the effects of hurricanes. Throughout the 1920s, hurricanes killed 2,122 Americans while causing about $1.8 billion in property damages. By contrast, in the first five years of the 1990s, hurricanes killed 111 Americans, and resulted in damages of about $35 billion. While we have made notable advances in early warning and evacuation systems to protect human lives, the risk of property loss continues to escalate and coastal inhabitants are more vulnerable to major storms than they ever have been. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo came ashore in South Carolina, leaving more than $6 billion in damages. Of that total from Hugo, the federal government paid out more than $2.8 billion in disaster assistance and more than $400 million from the National Flood Insurance Program. The payments from private insurance companies were equally staggering. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck southern Florida and slammed into low lying areas of Louisiana, forever changing the lives of more than a quarter of a million people and causing an estimated $25 to $30 billion dollars in damage. Hurricanes demonstrate that the human desire to live near the ocean and along the coast comes with both a responsibility and a cost. The oceans are part of our culture, part of our heritage, part of our economy, and part of our future. Those who doubt the need for this legislation need only pick up a newspaper and they will be face to face with pressing ocean and coastal issues. And while our coastal waters are governed by the United States or all of us, beyond our waters progress relies primarily on international cooperation. There are no boundaries at sea, no national borders with fences and checkpoints. Deciding how to manage all these problems and use the seas is one of the most complicated tasks we can tackle. Therefore, we need to be smart about ocean policy--we need the best minds to come together and take a look at what the real challenges are. It is not enough to sit back and assume the role of caretakers. We must be proactive and develop a plan for the future. The United Nations declared 1998 to the be the Year of the Ocean in part to encourage governments and the pubic to pay adequate attention to the need to protect the marine environment and to ensure a healthy ocean. This is an unprecedented opportunity to follow up the Year of the Ocean activities by celebrating and enhancing what has been accomplished in understanding and managing our oceans. 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 position 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 thank the cosponsors of the legislation for joining with me in recognizing it significance. We look forward to working together in the bipartisan spirit of the Stratton Commission to enact legislation that ensures the development of an integrated national ocean and coastal policy well into the next millennium. 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 the Oceans Act of 1999, legislation that the Senate unanimously passed in November 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators Stevens, Kerry, Breaux, Inouye, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Lautenberg, Akaka, Murkowski, Thurmond, Murray, Cleland, and Wyden. Mr. President, plainly and simply, this bill calls for a plan of action for the twenty-first century to explore, protect, and use our oceans and coasts through the coming millennium. This is not the first time we have faced the need for a national ocean policy. Three decades ago, our Nation roared into space, investing tens of billions of dollars to investigate the moon and the Sea of Tranquility. During that golden era of science, some of us also recognized the importance of exploring the seas 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. That legislation laid the foundation for U.S. ocean and coastal policy and programs and has guided their development for three decades. I was elected to the Senate just three months after the 1966 Act was enacted into law, but I am pleased that both Senators Inouye and Kennedy, the two cosponsors of the 1966 Act still serving in the Senate, have agreed to join me today in introducing the Oceans Act. One of the central elements of the 1966 Act was establishment of a presidential commission to develop a plan for national action in the oceans and atmosphere. Dr. Julius A. Stratton, a former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then-chairman of the Ford Foundation, led the Commission on an unprecedented, and since unrepeated, investigation of this nation's relationship with the oceans and the atmosphere. The Stratton Commission and its congressional advisors (including Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Norris Cotton) worked together in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, the Commission was established and carried out its mandate in the Democratic Administration of Lyndon Johnson and saw its findings implemented by the Republicans under President Richard Nixon. With a staff of 35 people, the commissioners hear and consulted over 1,000 people, visited every coastal area of this country, and submitted some 126 recommendations in a 1969 report to Congress entitled Our Nation and the Sea. Those recommendations led directly to the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970, laid the groundwork for enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972, and established priorities for federal ocean activities that have guided this Nation for almost thirty years. While the Stratton Commission performed its job with vision and integrity, the world has changed since 1966. Today, half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of our shores and more than 30 percent of the Gross Domestic Product is generated in the coastal zone. Ocean and coastal resources once considered inexhaustible are severely depleted, and wetlands and other marine habitats are threatened by pollution and human activities. In addition, the U.S. regulatory and legal framework has developed over the years with the passage of a number of statutes in addition to CZMA. These include the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and the Oil Pollution Act. It is time to conduct a review that looks at coordination and duplication of programs and policies developed under these laws. Today people who work and live on the water face a patchwork of confusing and sometimes contradictory federal and state regulations. This bill would allow us to reduce conflicts while maintaining environmental and health safeguards. One illustration of the type of situation that must be corrected is the southeast shrimp trawl fishery. Shrimpers are required under the Endangered Species Act to use panels or grates (known as turtle excluder devices or TEDs) in their nets to protect endangered sea turtles. The panels also reduce catches of small fish (bycatch), a new requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Unfortunately, however, the government has approved one TED for turtle protection and another for bycatch reduction--forcing the fishermen to use two separate devices, cut two holes in their nets, and double their shrimp loss. Anyone who wonders about public interest in regulatory reform has only to talk to a McClellanville, SC shrimper. The Oceans Act is vital to the continued health of the oceans and prosperity of our coasts. It is patterned after and would replace the 1966 Act. Like that Act, it is comprised of three major elements: First, the bill calls for development and implementation of a coherent national ocean and coastal policy to conserve and sustainably use fisheries and other ocean and coastal resources, protect the marine environment and human safety, explore ocean frontiers, create marine technologies and economic opportunities, and preserve U.S. leadership on ocean and coastal issues. Second, the bill 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. Commission members would be drawn from State and local governments, industry, academic and technical institutions, and public interest organizations involved in ocean and coastal activities. In developing its recommendations, the Commission would assess federal programs and funding priorities, ocean-related infrastructure requirements, conflicts among marine users, and technological opportunities. The bill authorizes appropriations of $6 million over two years to support Commission activities; last year's Omnibus Appropriations bill included $3.5 million to fund such a Commission. Third, the bill would create a high-level federal interagency Council that would include the heads of the Departments of Commerce, Navy, State, Transportation, and the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the National Economic Council. This Council would advise the President and serve as a forum for developing and implementing an ocean and coastal policy, provide for coordination of federal budgets and programs, and work with non-federal and international organizations. By establishing an action plan for ocean and coastal activities, the Oceans Act should also contribute substantially to national goals and objectives in the areas of education and research, economic development, and public safety. With respect to education and research, our view of the oceans thirty years ago was based on a remarkably small amount of information. When Jack Kennedy was in the White House, we were just beginning to develop the capability for exploring the oceans, and the driving factor was the military need to hide our submarines from the Soviets during the Cold War. What we knew of the oceans at that time was based as much on what fishermen brought up in their nets as it was on reliable scientific investigation. Nowhere is the need for U.S. leadership more evident than in the area of ocean exploration. Today, we still have explored only a tiny fraction of the sea, but with the use of new technologies what we have found is truly incredible. For example, hydrothermal vents, hot water geysers on the deep ocean floor, were discovered just 20 years ago by oceanographers trying to understand the formation of the earth's crust. Now this discovery had led to the identification of nearly 300 new types of marine animals with untold pharmaceutical and biomedical potential. In recent years, scientists from 19 nations have joined in an international partnership, headed by Admiral Watkins, to explore the history and structure of the Earth beneath the oceans basins. Their ship, the Resolution, is the world's largest scientific research vessel and can drill in water depths of up 8,200 meters. Over the past 12 years, it has recovered more than 115 miles of core samples through the world oceans. Recently ship scientists worked off the coast of South Carolina collecting new evidence of a large meteor that struck the Earth 65 million years ago, and is thought to have triggered climate change that may be linked to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Many of our marine research efforts could have profound impacts on our economic well-being. For example, research on coastal ocean currents and other processes that affect shoreline erosion is critical to effective management of the shoreline. Oceanographers are working with federal, state, and local managers to use this new understanding in protecting beachfront property and the lives of those who reside and work in coastal communities. Development of underwater cameras and sonar, begun in the 1940s for the U.S. Navy, has led to major strides not only for military uses, but for marine archaeologists and scientists exploring unknown stretches of sea floor. Consumers have benefited from the technology now used in video cameras. Sonar has broad applications in both the military and commercial sector. Finally, marine biotechnology research is thought to be one of the greatest remaining technological and industrial frontiers. Among the opportunities which it may offer are to: restore and protect marine ecosystems; monitor human health and treat disease; increase food supplies through aquaculture; enhance seafood safety and quality; provide new types and sources of industrial materials and processes; and understand biological and geochemical processes in the world ocean. In addition to the economic opportunities offered by our marine research investment, traditional marine activities play an important role in our national economic outlook. Ninety-five percent of our international trade is shipped on the ocean. In 1996, commercial fishermen in the United States landed almost 10 billion pounds of fish with a value of $3.5 billion. Their fishing-related activities contributed over $42 billion to the U.S. economy. During the same period, marine anglers contributed another $20 billion. Travel and tourism also contribute over $700 billion to our economy, much of which is generated in coastal areas. With a sound national ocean and coastal policy and effective marine resource management, these numbers have nowhere to go but up. With respect to public safety, it is particularly important to develop ocean and coastal priorities that reflect the changes we have seen in recent years. Before World War II, most of the U.S. shoreline was sparsely populated. There were long, wild stretches of coast, dotted with an occasional port city, fishing village, or sleepy resort. Most barrier islands had few residents or were uninhabited. After the war, people began pouring in, and coastal development began a period of explosive growth. In my state of South Carolina, our beaches attract millions of visitors every year, and more and more people are choosing to move to the coast--making the coastal counties the fastest growing ones in the state. Seventeen of the twenty fastest growing states in the nation are coastal states--which compounds the situation that the most densely populated regions already border the ocean. With population growth comes the demand for highways, shopping centers, schools, and sewers that permanently alter the landscape. If people are to continue to live and work on the coast, we must do a better job of planning how we impact the very regions in which we all want to live. There is no better example of how our ocean and coastal policies affect public safety, than to look at the effects of hurricanes. Throughout the 1920s, hurricanes killed 2,122 Americans while causing about $1.8 billion in property damages. By contrast, in the first five years of the 1990s, hurricanes killed 111 Americans, and resulted in damages of about $35 billion. While we have made notable advances in early warning and evacuation systems to protect human lives, the risk of property loss continues to escalate and coastal inhabitants are more vulnerable to major storms than they ever have been. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo came ashore in South Carolina, leaving more than $6 billion in damages. Of that total from Hugo, the federal government paid out more than $2.8 billion in disaster assistance and more than $400 million from the National Flood Insurance Program. The payments from private insurance companies were equally staggering. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck southern Florida and slammed into low lying areas of Louisiana, forever changing the lives of more than a quarter of a million people and causing an estimated $25 to $30 billion dollars in damage. Hurricanes demonstrate that the human desire to live near the ocean and along the coast comes with both a responsibility and a cost. The oceans are part of our culture, part of our heritage, part of our economy, and part of our future. Those who doubt the need for this legislation need only pick up a newspaper and they will be face to face with pressing ocean and coastal issues. And while our coastal waters are governed by the United States or all of us, beyond our waters progress relies primarily on international cooperation. There are no boundaries at sea, no national borders with fences and checkpoints. Deciding how to manage all these problems and use the seas is one of the most complicated tasks we can tackle. Therefore, we need to be smart about ocean policy--we need the best minds to come together and take a look at what the real challenges are. It is not enough to sit back and assume the role of caretakers. We must be proactive and develop a plan for the future. The United Nations declared 1998 to the be the Year of the Ocean in part to encourage governments and the pubic to pay adequate attention to the need to protect the marine environment and to ensure a healthy ocean. This is an unprecedented opportunity to follow up the Year of the Ocean activities by celebrating and enhancing what has been accomplished in understanding and managing our oceans. 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 position 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 thank the cosponsors of the legislation for joining with me in recognizing it significance. We look forward to working together in the bipartisan spirit of the Stratton Commission to enact legislation that ensures the development of an integrated national ocean and coastal policy well into the next millennium. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.