Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation to ban the Concorde (flown by British Airways and Air France to the U.S.) from operating in the U.S. A companion bill is being offered in the House by Congressman Oberstar. This measure is in direct response to a pending European Union resolution which places arbitrary design-based barriers on the operation of U.S.-registered, huskitted, aircraft meeting the highest U.S. technological noise standards. The EU, under the guise of an environmental regulation, has essentially declared a trade war. Their regulation, a so-called ``non-addition rule,'' is to be voted on by the EU in mid-February to become effective April 1, 1999. After that date, no U.S.-registered, stage 3 compliant aircraft (the quietest standard) can be operated in Europe. This EU regulation not only violates the Chicago Convention (which sets the framework for all bilateral aviation agreements) as it not only refuses to recognize U.S. air carriers' air worthiness certificates issued by our Government, it also holds great economic consequences for U.S. manufacturers and for many airlines. Those which are most vulnerable are small airlines and freight operators, which have fleets and operations based entirely on these aircraft. In essence, this ruling treats domestic and foreign operations differently in violation of the non-discrimination principle. The United States will not suffer such insidious trade practices lightly. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation to ban the Concorde (flown by British Airways and Air France to the U.S.) from operating in the U.S. A companion bill is being offered in the House by Congressman Oberstar. This measure is in direct response to a pending European Union resolution which places arbitrary design-based barriers on the operation of U.S.-registered, huskitted, aircraft meeting the highest U.S. technological noise standards. The EU, under the guise of an environmental regulation, has essentially declared a trade war. Their regulation, a so-called ``non-addition rule,'' is to be voted on by the EU in mid-February to become effective April 1, 1999. After that date, no U.S.-registered, stage 3 compliant aircraft (the quietest standard) can be operated in Europe. This EU regulation not only violates the Chicago Convention (which sets the framework for all bilateral aviation agreements) as it not only refuses to recognize U.S. air carriers' air worthiness certificates issued by our Government, it also holds great economic consequences for U.S. manufacturers and for many airlines. Those which are most vulnerable are small airlines and freight operators, which have fleets and operations based entirely on these aircraft. In essence, this ruling treats domestic and foreign operations differently in violation of the non-discrimination principle. The United States will not suffer such insidious trade practices lightly. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I believe it would be helpful for all of us to consider the example of bipartisan cooperation and collegiality set by many of our predecessors. Jack Valenti, a former advisor to President Lyndon Johnson and a man many of us know personally, nicely captured that spirit in a recent editorial, published in the Los Angeles Times, urging a return to ``political civility.'' There was a time, Mr. President, when leaders of both parties, men like President Johnson and Everett Dirksen, knew the importance of maintaining cordial relations and cooperating to further the national interest. As Jack Valenti puts it, ``they knew that compromise was not an ignoble word.'' In today's atmosphere, I fear that cooperating on anything for the good of the country will prove extremely difficult. In this trying time, we all should consider Jack Valenti's words, as well as the spirit of the bygone era he invokes. At this time, Mr. President, I ask that Mr. Valenti's editorial be printed in the Congressional Record. The editorial follows: [From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 29, 1999] Two Old Pols Knew the Art of a Bargain (By Jack Valenti) Controversy rages in Washington. But there is one fact in which agreement is universal: Between a majority of the people's representatives and the people's president, there is a continuing antagonism that makes civil communication almost impossible. But ``what if''? What if, frequently, President Clinton put his feet up on the coffee table on the second floor of the mansion with either the speaker of the House (or the majority leader of the Senate) lounging before him, chatting about where the nation ought to be heading. Not that either would change course or declare defeat. But the easy give and take of an informal conversation, some pieces of worthy programs might find daylight. Looking back is usually not very fruitful, but I remember when it was different than it is now. When I was special assistant to President Johnson, he charged me with ``handling'' key members of the Senate and the House, which meant they could call me direct with grievances, needs, requests. I was authorized to use my best judgment in responding. I bore personal witness to long-ago discourses wherein President Johnson and the minority leader of the Senate, Everett Dirksen of Illinois, would sip a drink, field some little joke that poked fun at each other and do the nation's business. Dirksen, the Republican leader, would call me around noon in that voice dipped in cream and ladled out in large velvet spoons, deep, sonorous tones to soothe even the most obsessively discontented. ``Jack, would you tell the boss I would like to see him today. Possible?'' Without hesitation, ``Absolutely, senator. You want to come by around 6 o'clock for a drink with him?'' At 3 o'clock that afternoon, Dirksen would rise on the Senate floor and flail LBJ with a rhetorical whip, comparing him unfavorably to Caligula. Three hours later, the two would gather in the West Hall in the living quarters of the president, with me as observer. ``Dammit, Everett, the way you treated me today made me feel like a cut dog. You ought to be ashamed of yourself,'' the president would say with a mocking grin. ``Well, Mr. President,'' came The Voice, trying in vain to suppress a chuckle. ``I have vowed to speak the truth so I had no choice in the matter.'' Much laughter. They both knew who they were and why they were leaders. They were two warriors who had fought a hundred battles against each other. They knew the game, how it was played, no quarter given, no quarter asked in the public arena. But when the day was done, they sat around the campfire, as it were, to recount the details of the fight over a flagon of fine refreshment. They both knew that each needed the other, and the country needed them both. If they fumed and fussed, determined to wound and kill the other, no ultimate good would come of it. The land they served would be agitated and stunted by stalemate. They both understood the meaning of ``duty'' to the nation, and they knew that compromise was not an ignoble word. The president would say, ``Now, Everett, I need three Republican votes on my civil rights bill, and, dammit, you can get them.'' Dirksen would ponder that somberly, and then pull a sheaf of papers out of his inside pocket. ``I have here, Mr. President, some potential nominees to the FCC, the ITC, the SEC'' and so on through the catalog of acronyms wherein the nation's regulatory labors get done. LBJ would sigh, and say, ``Jack, take down the names and see if Mr. Hoover (J. Edgar) will certify them.'' Dirksen would smile broadly, sip his drink. LBJ would do the same. After more intimate joshing between them, Dirksen would depart. There was no mention of a deal. There was no formal commitment. But each knew the pact was struck. Each would redeem the unspoken pledges given. And there was no leakage to the press. Moreover, the warriors' code was intact. Neither gloated in a supposed triumph over the other. By whatever mutations the gods of politics brew, there has to be a return to political civility, whose end result is to the nation's benefit. Neither LBJ nor Sen. Dirksen lost their honor or abandoned their crusades when they talked. Nor did they lose their bearings. For they knew such damage would diminish them both, and most of all the country, whose people they had by solemn oath sworn to serve, would be the loser. They did their duty.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Stevens and Senator Dodd: George Santayana stated, ``Those who disregard the lessons of history are bound to repeat them.'' The United States Senate is too politically charged and it would be more so were it not for the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd. A couple of weeks ago the Senate was about to go over the precipice of partisanship. Fortunately, we agreed to have an off-the-record session of all Senators. That alone would not have prevented our reckless course, but it did give all Senators an opportunity to hear Senator Byrd at his finest hour. He commenced by thanking Senator Daniel Akaka for leading us in prayer, harkening the time Benjamin Franklin took to the floor of the Continental Convention to call on divine guidance for cooperation and bipartisanship. Then Senator Byrd continued to calm partisan zeal and give us all a sense of historic perspective. We started talking sense instead of politics. It got us together. We could have gone the way of the House, but Senator Byrd is the one who put us on the right path. In appreciation for his leadership, we think the country could benefit by reading Senator Byrd's comments. I ask that the full text of Senator Byrd's remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Remarks of Senator Robert C. Byrd--Bipartisan Conference in the Old Senate Chamber, January 8 My colleagues, I thank the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader for bringing us together in this joint caucus. Mr. Daschle asked me last evening to be prepared to speak this morning following the remarks of the two leaders. I am flattered and honored to do so. Having a proclivity to speak at length on subjects that are close to my heart and about which I feel deeply, I have taken the precaution this morning to prepare some remarks in order that I might present them in an organized fashion and thus avoid speaking as long as I might otherwise be wont to do. I shall, however, add some extemporaneous remarks as the spirit of the occasion leads me. Before proceeding with the thoughts that I have put in writing, I wish to remind ourselves that we do, indeed, have not only the standing rules of the Senate, but we also have the standing rules for our guidance in impeachment trials. This bound copy of rules governing impeachment trials that I hold in my hand was published in 1986 as a result of a resolution which former Senator Robert Dole and I offered for referral to the Rules Committee, at which time we called on that Committee to update and provide any proposed modifications or revisions to the rules that had been in existence from the year 1868 when the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson took place. The rules which the Senate approved in 1986 were followed during the impeachment trials of the three Federal judges: Claiborne, Hastings, and Walter Nixon. In listening to some of the comments on television last evening, I noted that when news reporters interviewed tourists, those visitors to this city were under the impression that the Senate was proceeding into a trial without any rules for guidance. Some of the representatives of the news media were also under this mistaken impression. I am concerned about the public perception that we are proceeding to a trial without any rules to guide us. Therefore, I trust that we will all make it clear as we work with the press that the Senate, indeed, has a set of standing rules to guide us in this trial. Before I begin my prepared remarks, I wish to thank the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader for calling on Senator Akaka to deliver prayer. They chose the right Senator to lead us in prayer, and I thank Danny. His prayer set just the right tone and the right spirit for his occasion. In the midst of Danny's prayer, I recalled that day which came during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, when the Framers were encountering difficult problems, and their spirits were at a low ebb. There was dissension and divisiveness, and their hopes for success in achieving their goal were fading. Things seemed to be falling apart. Their dreams of fashioning a new Constitution--the Articles of Confederation being our first national Constitution--appeared to be growing dim. The new Ship of State which they hoped to launch was floundering in troubled waters with rocks and shoals upon every hand. Dark clouds of despair were closing in upon them, and the Framers were brought face-to-face with the stark possibility of failure. It was then, at that fateful moment, that the oldest man at the Convention, Benjamin Franklin, stood to his feet and addressed the chair in which sat General George Washington: ``Sir, I have lived a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see that God still governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without our Father's notice, is it probable that we can build an empire without our Father's aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that, `Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without our Father's aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than did the builders of Babel. I, therefore, beg leave, sir, to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.'' Franklin's motion was seconded by Mr. Sherman. My colleagues, let us proceed in these deliberations this morning in a spirit of prayerfulness and cooperation and bipartisanship, and see if we, too, in our generation may produce something worthy of being remembered. I speak from the viewpoint of having a long and varied experience in legislative bodies. I was born during the Woodrow Wilson Administration. I was sworn in as a new member of the House of Representatives during the final days of the Truman Administration. He is my favorite Democratic President in my lifetime. I having been sworn in as a new member of Congress in January 1953, I have served longer in Congress than has any man or woman in either House of Congress today. Dizzy Dean said that it is alright to brag if you've done it. Well I have done it! No member of Congress in either House today was here when I first became a member 46 years ago. I also try to take the long view of the history that is yet before us. This country has a long history ahead of it, and the things we do here, the service we perform, our words and our deeds will be long remembered and long recorded. As we proceed to the unpleasant task that awaits us in the days ahead, let us remember that this is not a trial in a court of law. It is not a criminal trial. It is a political trial. The Nation will be watching us, and I implore us all to conduct ourselves in a way that will bring honor to this body. I view the immediate future with considerable dread. There is a poison in the air, and it is not the flu virus, and there is no antibiotic that can be prescribed for it. It is a bitter political partisanship, and if we let it control us in the impeachment trial, we will find it to be lethal, and we will die together. From time to time there occur events which rise above the everyday, and sorely test the leaders of men and the institutions they create. This is such a time. For it is not only William Jefferson Clinton who is on trial. It is this August body and all of us who carry the title of Senator. The White House has sullied itself. The House of Representatives has fallen into the black pit of partisan self-indulgence. The Senate is teetering on the brink of that same black pit. Meanwhile, the American people look in vain for the order and leadership promised to them by the Constitution. Of one thing I am sure: the public trust in all of the institutions of government has severely suffered. Senators, this is the headline, I had so hoped we could avoid. I have in my hand this morning's Washington Times bearing the headline: ``Trial Opens Amid Pomp, Partisanship.'' It is the word ``partisanship'' that is troubling. Any of you who have read your mail or the phoned-in comments from your constituents knows that the anger and disappointment is only growing in intensity with each day that we prolong this painful ordeal. I have always believed that whatever the crisis and whatever the age, the Senate would always attract and produce men and women of the quality and character needed to step up and calm the angry and dangerous seas which might threaten the Ship of State, and dash it on the rocks and shoals. I still believe that. I still believe that the Senate can restore some order to the anger which has overtaken this country and the chaos which threatens this city. I believe in all of you. I believe that all of the courage and conviction needed to handle any crisis is present right in this room. But, at this moment, we look very bad. We appear to be dithering and posturing and slowly disintegrating into the political quicksand. And it is no fault of our leaders. Our two leaders have done their level best to get us started toward lancing this inflamed boil in an honorable and orderly way. Left alone, without all of us to contend with, they would have worked these arrangements out long ago. Of course, I am very fond and proud of my own Leader, Tom Daschle. But, may I say to my Republican friends that I am also very fond and proud of our Majority Leader, Mr. Lott. However, I have been a Majority Leader in this body, and I know too well who gets the blame when important matters flounder in the Senate. It is the Majority Leader and, to a lesser degree, the Minority Leader. And when that happens, neither party looks good. I feel it to be appropriate at this point to digress from my prepared statement and bring to your recollection Chaucer's ``Canterbury Tales,'' and I shall refer to the ``Pardoner's Tale,'' which most, if not all, of you will remember having read in your school days. The setting took place in Flanders, where, once, there sat drinking in a tavern three young men who were given to folly. As they sat, they heard a small bell clink before a corpse being carried to the grave, whereupon, one of them called to his knave and ordered him to go and find out the name of the corpse that was passing by. The boy answered that he already knew, and that it was an old comrade of the roisterers who had been slain while drunk by an unseen thief called Death, who had slain others in recent days. Out into the road the three young ruffians went in search of this monster called death. They came upon an old man, and seized him and with rough language demanded that he tell them where they could find this cowardly adversary who was taking the lives of their good friends in the countryside. The old man pointed to a great oak tree on a nearby knoll, saying, ``There, under that tree, you will find Death.'' In a drunken rage, the three roisterers set off in a run 'til they came to the tree, and there they found a pile of gold--eight basketfuls, of florins, newly minted, round coins. Forgotten was the monster called Death, as they pondered their good fortune, and they decided that they should remain with the gold until nightfall when they would divide it among themselves and take it to their homes. It would be unsafe, they thought, to attempt to do so in broad daylight, as they might be fallen upon by thieves who would take their treasure from them. It was proposed that they draw straws, and the person who drew the shortest cut would go into the nearby village and purchase some bread and wine which they could enjoy as they whiled away the daylight hours. Off towards the village the young man went. When he was out of sight, the remaining two decided that there was no good reason why this fortune should be divided among three individuals, so one of them said to the other: ``When he returns, you throw your arm around him as if in jest, and I will rive him with my dagger. And, with your dagger, you can do the same. Then, all of this gold will be divided just between you and me.'' Meanwhile, the youngest rouge, as he made its way into the town, thought what a shame it was that the gold would be divided among three, when it could so easily belong only to the ownership of one. Therefore, in town, the young man went directly to an apothecary and asked to be sold some poison for large rats and for a polecat that had been killing his chickens. The apothecary quickly provided some poison, saying that as much as equalled only a grain of wheat would result in sudden death for the creature that drank the mixture. Having purchased the poison, the young villain crossed the street to a winery where he purchased three bottles--two for his friends, one for himself. After he left the village, he sat down, opened two bottles and deposited an equal portion in each, and then returned to the oak tree, where the two older men did as they had planned. One threw his arm playfully around the shoulders of the third, they buried their daggers in him, and he fell dead on the pile of gold. The other two then sat down, cut the bread and opened the wine. Each took a good, deep swallow, and, suffering a most excruciating pain, both fell upon the body of the third, across the pile of gold. All three were dead. Their avarice, their greed for gain had destroyed them. There is a lesson here. The strong temptation for political partisanship can tear the Senate apart, and can tear the Nation apart, and confront all of us with destruction. I ask everyone here who might be tempted, to step back from the brink of political gamesmanship. I ask everyone here who might harbor such feelings to abandon any thought of mean- spirted, destructive, vengeful, partisan warfare. It is easy to get caught up in the poison of bitter, self-consuming partisanship when faced with such situations as the one which confronts us now. Witnesses are the main sticking point. I try to put myself in the shoes of our GOP friends. At least 13 House members are pushing you. They had the opportunity to call witnesses but didn't. I watched all House proceedings. It seems to me that with such a mass of evidence, nothing new will be added. We must avoid a repetition of what the House has just gone through. I urge all of us to step back and think about it. What can possibly be served in this unique court of impeachment by having a repeat of what we have already seen? I implore us all to endeavor to lift our eyes to higher things. We can perform some much needed healing on the body politic. We can start by disdaining any more of the salacious muck which has already soiled the gowns of too many. If we can come together in a dignified way to orderly and expeditiously dispose of this matter, then perhaps we can yet salvage a bit of respect and trust from the American people for all of us, for the Senate, and for their institutions of government. There have been only 1,851 Senators from the beginning of this Republic, and that includes all of us. We have a duty at this critical time to rise above politics-as-usual, in which we eat one another and, in so doing, eat ourselves. Let us put the nation first. The American people want us to do that. In the long run, that is how we will be judged, and, more importantly, it is how the Senate will be judged. The Constitution makes no reference to political party. The constitutional provision concerning impeachment makes no mention of political party. There were no political parties at the time the Constitution was written. When this is all over and this matter is behind us--and that time will surely come--then we can be politically partisan if we wish, as various legislative matters come before us. That is all in the natural course of things. Republicans and Democrats can go at each others throats politically if that is what they desire. But this is not a time for political partisanship. We will be sitting in judgment of a President. And we should be guided by our oath that, in all things appertaining to the trial of William Jefferson Clinton, we shall do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws. Let us be guided by higher motives, by what is best for the Republic, and by how future history will judge us. We need a surer foundation than political partisanship, and that sure foundation is the Constitution. The Senate was the preeminent spark of genius by the Framers. It was here that passions would be cooled. The Senate would be the stabilizing element when confronted with the storms of political frenzy and the silent arts of corruption. Let us be true to the faith of our fathers and to the expectations of those who founded this Republic. The coming days will test us. Let us go forward together, hoping that in the end, the Senate will be perceived as having stood the test. And may we--both Republicans and Democrats--when our work is done, be judged by the American people and by the pages of future history as having done our duty and done it well. Our supreme duty is not to any particular person or party, but to the people of the Nation and to the future of this Republic. It is in this spirit that we may do well to remember the words of Benjamin Hill, a great United States Senator from the State of Georgia, inscribed, as they are, upon his monument: Who saves his country Saves all things, Saves himself and all things saved do bless him. Who lets his country die Let's all things die, Dies himself ignobly, And all things dying curse him. Thank you, my friends, thank you.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Robb to introduce the Separate Enrollment and Line Item Veto Act of 1999. This Congress, I hope the Senate will finally dispense with political gamesmanship and enact a true line item veto. It is past time to restore responsibility to federal spending by granting the President the power to strike wasteful and unnecessary items from our budget. The bill we are introducing today is a ``separate enrollment'' line item veto. It provides that each spending or tax provision be enrolled as a separate bill, allowing the President to either sign or veto each of these smaller bills in accordance with the veto power expressly granted under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution. This legislation is designed to allow the President to strike spending or tax items from the budget without violating the delicate separation of powers which exists under our Constitution. In contrast, the so-called ``enhanced rescission'' line item veto--enacted in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court on June 25, 1998--represented a shift in the separation of powers. Under that approach, the President had the authority to sign a bill into law, then strike individual provisions and require a Congressional supermajority to override these rescissions. In doing so, the President was clearly performing a legislative function granted exclusively to Congress by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court announced its decision striking down the 1996 line item veto, the White House and many in Congress clamored in the media about how disappointed they were. The truth is that no one was really surprised. In fact, many Senators--including myself--made statements in 1996 and voted against the bill because it was unconstitutional. The events surrounding the enactment of the 1996 law clearly show that politics was placed before policy. In 1995 our separate enrollment approach had received bipartisan support in the Senate, with 69 Senators voting for the measure. The ``enhanced rescission'' approach, on the other hand, received only 45 votes when considered in 1993, with several Senators raising constitutional objections during the debate. However, in an apparent attempt to put off meaningful reform in favor of Presidential politics, the ``enhanced rescission'' bill was resurrected in 1996 in an effort to score political points. Now, we have come full circle after the Court's decision. It is time to get serious and enact the same bill which received 69 votes in 1995. Mr. President, I am no stranger to this issue. As Governor of South Carolina, I saw first hand how effective the line item veto can be. I used it to cut millions of dollars in wasteful spending from the state budget, and in the process helped earn South Carolina the first AAA credit rating in the state's history. The Governors of 43 states now possess line item veto authority. I have been trying for years to bring this same approach to Washington. I have introduced or co-sponsored a separate enrollment line-item veto in every Congress since 1985. In that year, I co-sponsored Senator Mack Mattingly's separate enrollment bill, which received 58 votes in the Senate. In 1990, I offered a similar bill in the Senate Budget Committee, which passed the line item veto for the first time in history by a bipartisan vote of 13-6. In 1993, after Senator Bradley came on board, we were again able to get a majority of 53 votes. Then, in 1995, support for the bill reached an all-time high when the bill finally passed the Senate with 69 votes. One needs to look no further than last year's end of the session debacle to see the need for the line item veto. Nearly an entire year's worth of legislation--including eight of the thirteen normal appropriations bills, an emergency spending bill, and a tax ``extenders'' bill--was wrapped into a monstrosity entitled the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999. The time period between the drafting of the bill and its enactment was so short that Senators made statements on the floor that they did not even know the contents of the bill. Unfortunately, this type of omnibus appropriations has become common in recent years, and it prevents an obvious opportunity for abuse. Wasteful spending and tax items are included in these huge, hastily drafted bills, and the President is faced with a ``take it or leave it'' proposition. With the session winding down, he often is forced to ``take it,'' including items which are totally without merit. The line item veto would prevent this type of waste and irresponsibility by allowing each item to be considered separately. I urge my colleagues to support this line item veto bill with the same bi-partisan support it received in 1995 so that we may finally restore responsibility to our federal budget process.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a problem with which we are all too familiar: the ever-increasing cost of political campaigns. Sadly, this cost can be counted not only in millions of dollars but also in lost credibility. Each election year, our political system and we as representatives lose the invaluable and irreplaceable trust of the American people. The enormous amount of money required to wage a political campaign today has given rise to the pervasive belief that our elections-- indeed, even we ourselves--are up for sale to the highest bidder. Though this is not the reality, the fact that it is the perception is almost as damning. It is time to strike a blow against the anything-goes fundraising and spending encouraged by both political parties. The need to limit campaign expenditures is more urgent than ever: the total cost of Congressional campaigns skyrocketed from $446 million in 1990 to over $620 million in 1996. This represents a 71-percent increase in just six years. Although fundraising slowed in the election cycle just ended, candidates for general election in 1998 still spent over $10 million more than their counterparts in 1996. Make no mistake: this lull is a temporary one. Experts attribute the slowed spending last year to the unusually large number of uncompetitive elections. I know this is true because in my state, which was the setting for highly competitive elections for my Senate seat as well as the governorship and other state offices, candidates spent record amounts and made 1998 the most expensive election year in South Carolina history. In fact, although the total cost of all Congressional elections increased only slightly this year, candidates for Senate office spent over 15 percent more than their counterparts in 1996. We can be sure that in 2000, election spending will skyrocket to new, astounding levels. And we can be equally sure that this will add to the public's already overwhelming cynicism about its representatives and to the problem of corruption, or at least its appearance in our political system. At best, the obsession with money distracts us from the people's business. At worst, it corrupts and degrades the entire political process. Fundraisers used to be arranged so they don't conflict with the Senate schedule; nowadays, the Senate schedule is regularly shifted to accommodate fundraisers. All this is the result of the rising costs of political campaigns. Ironically, campaign expenditures have risen dramatically, far exceeding inflation, since Congress attempted campaign finance reform in 1974. Even greater than the increases in aggregate campaign costs were those for average winning candidates--the most useful measure of the real costs of running for office. The average cost for a winning House candidate rose from $87,000 in 1976 to over $640,000 in 1998. For a victorious Senate candidate, the cost of victory rose from $609,000 to $4.4 million last year. I remember Senator Richard Russell used to say, ``They give you a six year term in this U.S. Senate: two years to be a statesman, the next two years to be a politician, and the last two years to be a demagogue.'' Regrettably, we are no longer afforded even 2 years as statesmen. We proceed straight to demagoguery after an election because of the imperatives of raising money. The public demands the system be cleaned up. But how? For years, Senator Specter and I have introduced a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to set reasonable campaign expenditure limits. Today Senator Specter and I will reintroduce our amendment to empower Congress and the States to limit campaign spending as they see fit. I believe a constitutional amendment is the only way to fix the system; yet since 1976, Congress has failed to adopt one. It has opted instead for a series of half-hearted, piece-meal solutions, with predictable results. For nearly a quarter of a century, Congress has tired to tackle runaway campaign spending through statutory means. Again and again, Congress has failed. Let us resolve not to repeat the mistakes of past campaign finance reform efforts, which have bogged down in partisanship as Democrats and Republicans each have tried to gore the other's sacred cows. The most recent statutory attempt to reform our tangled campaign system was the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Although I supported this legislation and will do so again this year, I have grave doubts about its ability to effectively reform our tangled campaign finance system. I fear McCain-Feingold never will be enacted, and that even if it passes, it will not withstand the Supreme Court's scrutiny. Since 1976, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it will not uphold any law that limits the money political candidates can spend to win office. The most recent example of the Court's position, as well as of the obstacles local and state officials attempting reform face in their courts, came last November, when the Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal from the City of Cincinnati involving an ordinance that limited the amount city council candidates could spend trying to get elected. That ordinance had been struck down by a lower federal court as unconstitutional. So you see, Mr. President, no statutory legislation--at the federal, state, or local level--is going to succeed at cleaning up our political system because no such legislation will pass constitutional muster. The framework for today's campaign finance system was erected back in 1974, when Congress responded to public outrage over the Watergate scandals and the disturbing money trails from the 1972 Presidential election by passing, on a bipartisan basis, a comprehensive campaign finance law. I was here in 1974, and I was proud to support the Federal Election Campaign Act. The centerpiece of this reform was a limitation on campaign expenditures. Congress recognized that spending limits were the only rational alternative to a system that essentially awards office to the highest bidder. Unfortunately, in 1976 the Supreme Court overturned these spending limits in its infamous Buckley versus Valeo decision. The Court mistakenly equated a candidate's right to spend unlimited sums of money with his right to free speech. In the face of spirited dissents, the Court drew a tortuous distinction between campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. The Court concluded that limiting an individual's campaign contributions was a justifiable abridgment of the First Amendment, on the grounds that ``the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption outweighs considerations of free speech.'' Yet the Court also concluded, in a dichotomous and confusing decision, that the state's interest in preventing corruption and its appearance did not justify limiting a candidate's total expenditures. This, the Court ruled, constituted an unacceptable infringement on candidates' speech. I have never been able to fathom why that same test--the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption-- does not justify limits on campaign spending. The Court committed a grave error by striking down spending limits as a threat to free speech. The fact is, imposing spending limits in federal campaigns would help restore the free speech that has been eroded by the Buckley decision. As Professor Gerald G. Ashdown wrote in the New England Law Review, amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate campaign expenditures is ``the most theoretically attractive of the approaches to reform since, from a broad free speech perspective, the decision in Buckley is misguided and has worsened the campaign finance atmosphere.'' Adds Professor Ashdown: ``If Congress could constitutionally limit the campaign expenditures of individuals, candidates, and committees, along with contributions, most of the troubles . . . would be eliminated.'' Let us be done with the hollow charge that spending limits are somehow an attack on freedom of speech. As Justice Byron White pointed out in his dissent from the majority's Buckley opinion, both contribution limits and spending limits are neutral as to the content of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of political speech in general. The Buckley decision created a double bind. It upheld restrictions on campaign contributions but struck down restrictions on how much candidates with deep pockets can spend. The Court ignored the practical reality that if my opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a race and I have $1 million, then I can effectively deprive him of speech. By failing to respond to my advertising, my cash-poor opponent will appear unwilling to speak up in his own defense. Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in on this disparity in his dissent to Buckley. By striking down the limit on what a candidate can spend, Justice Marshall said, ``It would appear to follow that the candidate with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a significant head start.'' Indeed, Justice Marshall went further. He argued that by upholding the limitations on contributions but striking down limits on overall spending, the Court put an additional premium on a candidate's personal wealth. Justice Marshall was dead right. The Buckley decision has been a boon to wealthy candidates, who can flood the airwaves and drown out their opponents' voices. Make no mistake: political speech is not free. A political candidate's ability to disseminate his ideas and speak to the voters depends entirely on his finances. Thus, candidates who are personally wealthy or possess large campaign coffers have a tremendous advantage over poorer candidates--they always will enjoy more speech. The amendment Senator Specter and I propose today will help level the playing field between rich and poor candidates and ensure that all enjoy equal speech. Believe me, Mr. President, I am not enunciating any radical view today. The Court itself equated money with speech in its Buckley decision. Of course, the Court--and critics of this amendment--adheres to the belief that limiting candidate expenditures is a violation of the First Amendment. Yet the Court rules in 1976 that there exist compelling interests--in this case, the need to prevent the appearance and reality of corruption--to justify the state in circumscribing protected speech. All this amendment does is apply the Court's rationale to candidates' speech. Buckley's nullification of spending limits has helped give rise to American's belief that political offices are up for sale to the highest bidder and has curtailed public discourse. By rendering spending limits impossible it has fueled the escalating costs of campaigns and forced politicians to focus more and more on fundraising and less on important public issues. Our urgent task is to right the injustice of Buckley versus Valeo by empowering Congress to limit campaign spending. My proposed constitutional amendment would accomplish this. It does not proscribe specific cures for what ails our campaign finance system. Instead, it would provide Congress the authority to reform the system by limiting candidate spending. To a distressing degree today, elections are determined not in the political marketplace but in the financial marketplace. Our elections are supposed to be contests of ideas, but too often they degenerate into megadollar derbies, paper chases through the board rooms of corporations and special interests. Mr. President, campaign spending must be brought under control. The constitutional amendment I have proposed would permit Congress to impose fair, responsible, workable limits on Federal campaign expenditures. Such a reform would have four important effects. It would end the mindless pursuits of enormous campaign war chests. Also, it would free candidates from their current obsession with fundraising and allow them to focus more on issues and ideas; once elected to office, we wouldn't have to spend 20 percent of our time raising money to keep our seats. Third, it would curb the influence of special interests. And finally, it would create a more level playing field for all candidates. Before concluding, Mr. President, I would like to elaborate on the advantages of a constitutional amendment such as I propose over statutory attempts to reform the campaign system. Recent history amply demonstrates the practicality and viability of this constitutional route. It is not coincidence that the six most-recent amendments to the Constitution have dealt with Federal election issues. These are profound issues which go to the heart of our democracy; it is entirely appropriate that they be addressed through a constitutional amendment. And let's not be distracted by the argument that amending the constitution will take too long. Take too long? We have been dithering on this campaign finance issue since the early 1970s, and we haven't advanced the ball a single yard. It has been a quarter of a century, and no legislative solution has done the job. Excluding the unusual case of the Twenty-seventh Amendment, which required over 200 years to be ratified, the last five constitutional amendments took an average of only 17 months to be adopted. There is no reason why we cannot pass this joint resolution, submit it to the States for a vote, and ratify the amendment in time for it to govern the 2000 elections. Indeed, this approach could prove more expeditious than the alternative statutory approach. This joint resolution, once passed by the Congress, will go directly to the States for ratification. Once ratified, it will become the law of the land and will not be subject to veto or Supreme Court challenge. Furthermore, I anticipate and reject the argument that if we were to pass and ratify this amendment, Democrats and Republicans would be unable to hammer out a mutually acceptable formula of campaign expenditure limits. A Democratic Congress and Republican President did exactly that in 1974, and we can certainly do it again. Mr. President, this amendment will address the campaign finance mess directly, decisively, and conclusively. The Supreme Court has chosen to ignore the overwhelmingly detrimental effects of money in today's campaigns. In the Buckley decision, it elucidated a vague and inconsistent definition of free speech. In its place, I urge passage of this amendment. Let us ensure equal freedom of expression for all who seek Federal office.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President: As the 106th Congress begins, we have to address unfinished business first. As many Senators know, the vitally important legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) passed in September by a vote of 92-1. For a variety of reasons negotiations between the House and Senate unfortunately resulted in only a 6-month extension, expiring at the end of March of this year. The bill being introduced today is an effort to reauthorize the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration for two years. In today's global economy, adequate airport facilities are a critical component of any economic development program. The FAA's Airport Improvement Program plays a central role in ensuring that communities have adequate airport facilities. For FY 1998, the FAA received $1.9 billion. For FY 1999, the FAA would have received $1.95 billion. Instead, the agency will receive only half of that amount, unless we pass either a short term bill or a long term extension of the program. One course we know can work quickly. The other course is more challenging. While it is critically important that we work together to pass this vital legislation, I do want to raise an issue of fundamental importance. That is truth in budgeting. I have supported taking trust funds out of the unified Federal budget for many years. This year, there may be an opportunity to actually make it happen. What is good for highways is good for aviation. At the end of FY 1998, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund uncommitted surplus was $4.339 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is projected to rise to $13.419 billion by the end of FY 2000 and to $79.325 billion by FY 2008. We are collecting the taxes, but are not giving people what they expect, what they paid for, or what they deserve. We know that the FAA needs money to buy new computers and to use satellite technology. We can take it from the existing revenues, while continuing the general fund contribution, or we can limp along, giving the FAA a portion of what we all know it needs. If we do that there are consequences, and the fault is ours, not the agency's. It is that simple. There are difficult problems facing the 106th Congress. Our constituents are demanding reasonable fares. Competition can work well to give us reasonable fares, but it has also created unfortunate anomalies. Look around the country--in the 1980's, the Department of Transportation approved every single merger that was proposed. Now we have a consolidated industry, with the big 3 air carriers accounting for nearly 55-60% of the market, and the Northwest-Continental alliance accounting for another 16-17%. Over the years, I have asked the General Accounting Office to look at fares at small and medium hubs, places like Charleston, S.C. They reported that fares were in fact higher, on average at Charleston, at Greenville, and many other small communities. Last week, the Department of Transportation reported that Charleston had the 5th highest air fares in the country. I did not realize we were 5th, a dubious honor, but I knew they were high. We have a deregulated air transportation system, dependent upon mega-carriers for service, and beholden to them on fares. Without a hub system aggregating traffic, small communities would not receive the service they do today. Yet, the same ability allows the carriers to place the small towns at their mercy. Our economy and ability to grow, to attract new businesses, are now highly dependent upon those same carriers. A low cost carrier may come into a market, cause a ripple in lowering the fares, and then be driven out. We had that with Air South. Getting service to one of the four slot- controlled airports, while important for that route, will not result in lower air fares for the rest of the markets. The average may drop overall, but the statistics do not then tell the real story. Determining how we address this problem will be difficult, but it must be done. There also are a number of issues important to aviation employees and others that must be addressed as we move through the legislative process. For example, issues involving foreign repair stations must be examined, and the bill includes a task force to address this issue. FAA employees must once again be granted access to the Merit System Protection Board and a Universal Access System must be authorized. Whistle-blower protection is another important issue. I look forward to working with Chairman McCain, Chairman Gorton, and Ranking Member Rockefeller toward meeting these objectives and ensuring that our final product is a bill that enjoys the broad support of the aviation community. The comprehensive bill I am co-sponsoring today may not be completed for many months, and we may have to pass a short term extension to make sure that the money for airports does not get tied up. Nevertheless, I know that the Chairman is anxious to get us all moving, so let the debate begin and let us move forward expeditiously in order to fund these critically important programs.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board (Board). As I have said many times before, the Board performs a vital role regulating the interests of our railroad and other surface transportation industries. Under the able and forward-looking leadership of Linda Morgan, the Board's Chairman, who was with us on the Commerce Committee for many years, the Board with its small staff has put out more work, and higher quality work, than much larger agencies. Most significantly, unlike many other agencies, the Board is not afraid to tackle the hard issues, and to put out decisions that are fair, well-reasoned, and independent of political expediency. For example, the Board's unprecedented and focused actions in handling the recent rail service crisis in the West provided the appropriate mix of government intervention and private- sector initiative. More recently, at the end of 1998, at the request of Chairman McCain and Senator Hutchison, the Board reviewed rail competition and issued several decisions in controversial cases, and made several recommendations to Congress, that reflect a balanced and comprehensive view of the transportation industry and the fundamental issues that confront it. The Board recently released its findings. In rendering these decisions, the Board, which is accountable to Congress, has acted responsibly and has provided a valuable service in resolving issues within its jurisdiction such as the determination of market dominance, and in raising others, such as open access, more appropriately addressed by Congress. As anyone who has read the comprehensive letter from Chairman Morgan to Senators McCain and Hutchison reporting on the Board's rail access and competition proceeding knows, the Board has acted creatively, aggressively, and decisively in tackling hard issues within its jurisdiction, and in making suggestions to Congress as to how to address remaining issues of contention between railroads and their shippers, and between railroads and their employees. One of its decisions finalized rules that for the first time provide various specific avenues for relief in cases of localized poor rail service, and another decision took steps to facilitate the review of rail rate reasonableness cases by eliminating certain evidentiary thresholds. Linda Morgan as Board Chairman pressed the railroad industry to be more directly accountable to the needs of their customers, and has requested them to reach out directly to their shippers and employees. This has allowed the railroads to reach more settlements with their customers and employees than they have in many years. I commend the Board for initiating government action that results in private sector settlements. Ultimately this sort of settlement has greater chance of realistic dispute resolution. Congress should feel fortunate to have an agency with the competence and credibility to move issues forward in such a positive direction. Because we need the Board, and because the Board has done a fine job, I am here today supporting the introduction of a reauthorization bill. I know that some tough legislative issues regarding transportation regulation may come our way this session, and I look forward to working with the Board and my colleagues on those matters. Whatever the resolution of those matters, we need the stability and continuity in addressing these issues that reauthorization legislation for the Board will provide. The Board, working with the law we gave it, has done its job. I want to thank the Board in general, and Chairman Morgan in particular, who has my unqualified support, for a job well done. The Board has been confronted with some of the most difficult and fundamental issues to challenge rail transportation in many years. The agency has met these issues head on with forthrightness and resolve, taking into account the interests of all parties. However, I am concerned for the Board's future; the Board has not had the opportunity to bring in new personnel to replace personnel that will be of retirement age. It is incumbent on us that we provide this agency the necessary resources to adequately train new personnel, and prepare them to address the rail and other surface issues of the future. I think that much credit is due the Board for facilitating more private-sector dialogue, initiative, and resolution than has ever been undertaken before, and for raising and tackling issues in ways that have never been undertaken before. Once again, I commend the Board on a job well done. The Nation needs agencies like the Board, and I enthusiastically support the reauthorization bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I want to call attention to a brave and selfless deed by a heroic young man from Hanahan, South Carolina. On August 6, 15-year-old Keith Putnam sacrificed his own life to save two women and a small child from a speeding train. When Keith saw Maurica Hovey, her 3-year-old son John, and her friend Layonee Phillips stuck in the path of an oncoming train, he did what all of us hope we would have the courage to do in such a situation: he leapt from his truck and raced to aid those in danger. After saving Maurica, John, and Layonee, Keith returned to the abandoned car to make sure no one was left inside. At the moment he approached the car, the onrushing train slammed into it, sending it careening into Keith and fatally wounding him. Thanks to Keith's quick thinking and heroic action, all three of the people he saved from the train escaped without harm. Mr. President, I have seen many heroic acts in my lifetime, in World War II and in peacetime, but I don't believe I have ever seen a young man who has been more respected by his community than Keith Putnam. In every way, he was a model citizen. Just before his death, Keith had been made an usher at Peace Lutheran Church, which he attended every Sunday. A great patriot, Keith was dedicated to his country as well as his neighbors. In fact, he planned to attend my alma mater, The Citadel, and then serve as a pilot in the Air Force. Perhaps what was most noteworthy about Keith, especially in this day and age, was his willingness to help his neighbors and even total strangers without ever thinking of himself or asking for anything in return. Keith was committed to public service through large and small acts, whether helping strangers carry groceries to their cars or saving them from a fatal train collision. Since his death, his community has seen an incredible outpouring of emotion, as his neighbors, friends, and family express their grief at the loss of such an admirable and caring young man. Today, Mr. President, I would like to add my voice to theirs. It was not my privilege to know Keith Putnam personally, but his heroism and generosity are an inspiration and an example to us all. I hope the tremendous admiration everyone felt for Keith, and the knowledge that their son's life was exemplary in every way possible, will be of some comfort to Keith's family in their trying time of grief.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate two nominees, Mr. Hal Creel and Mr. John Moran, upon their confirmation to be Federal Maritime Commissioners. Hal Creel, a native of South Carolina and my former Senior Counsel on the Maritime Subcommittee, has been a Federal Maritime Commissioner for four years. He has served the last two and a half years as the agency's Chairman. As Chairman, he has demonstrated a wide-ranging knowledge of the maritime industry and an outstanding ability to oversee industry activities. Our Nation is extremely fortunate to have such a dedicated individual at the helm of this important government body. Mr. Creel and the Federal Maritime Commission are responsible for overseeing all international liner shipping in the U.S.--over $500 billion in trade. His efforts in the controversy surrounding Japan's restrictive port practices come immediately to mind. The Government of Japan for many years has orchestrated a system that impedes open trade, unjustly favors Japanese companies, and results in tremendous inefficiencies for anyone serving Japan's ports. The FMC, under Mr. Creel's guidance, met these problems head-on and he was instrumental in bringing the two governments to the bargaining table. The bilateral agreement that resulted paves the way for far-reaching changes that can remove these unfair barriers to trade. The progress made to date has occurred in large measure due to the Commission's firm, results-oriented approach. I urge him to continue to keep the Japanese honest, and to perform their agreed upon obligations. Hal Creel also has led the Commission in its efforts to resolve unfavorable trading conditions with the Peoples Republic of China and Brazil. These trades pose differing problems, but circumstances that nonetheless restrict U.S. companies or render their business dealings unnecessarily difficult or simply inefficient. Hal Creel is widely respected by all sectors of the industry as an involved, knowledgeable Chairman who can be trusted to make impartial decisions based on all relevant factors. This has been evidenced by the objective, informed decisions he renders in formal proceedings, his voting record on important agency matters, and the evenhanded enforcement program administered by the Commission. As Chairman of the FMC, Hal Creel has worked hard to curb harmful practices and create equitable trading conditions for the entire industry. He takes a personal stake in these matters and works hard to obtain industry compliance with the laws passed by this Congress. But those who willfully violate the law or intentionally disregard the Nation's ocean shipping policies as contained in the Shipping Act are dealt with appropriately. These are turbulent times in the liner shipping industry, times that call for effective and respected leadership from our Nation's regulatory body. Mr. Creel provides that leadership now, and I am certain will continue to do so as the industry enters the new environment that will result from the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 passed by this body last week. I am proud of the accomplishments and fine work Hal has done at the FMC. I am also proud that he is a native South Carolinian. He certainly has continued the fine tradition and excellence he established as a staffer and senior counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee. His reappointment is well deserved. I also wish to convey my support for John Moran to become a Commissioner at the FMC. John also is a former Commerce Committee counsel who served all members of that Committee with distinction. John and Hal worked together at the Committee on a bipartisan basis, slugging through tough issues and serving all of the Members well. For my Senate colleagues who do not know Mr. Moran, his only fault is that he is not from South Carolina. He has demonstrated his abilities and intellect time and time again. He is well suited to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner. Currently, John works representing the American Waterways Operators, as their Vice President for legislative affairs. John also has an outstanding reputation within the maritime and transportation industry sectors. I congratulate these two deserving individuals, who have been appointed to the agency which plays such a critical role in international trade.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to honor and thank an individual who has been a tremendous asset to the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee for the last two years. That individual is Carl Truscott, a United States Secret Service agent who has worked with Senator Gregg's committee staff in preparing the fiscal year 1998 and 1999 CJS Appropriations bills. Carl has been responsible for making policy and fiscal recommendations on the budgets of many of the Department of Justice programs. He's done this with integrity, an eye for detail, and a true bi-partisan spirit. Paramount to Carl's disposition is his belief in doing a good, thorough and fair job, which translated into him working closely with my staff and the Justice Department, ensuring that everyone was on the same page in regard to determining what would be best for the Department of Justice, for the interests of our States, and for the interests of our Senators, regardless on which side of the aisle they sit. I'm sure Carl is moving on to bigger and better things--and I'm also certain he will earn the genuine appreciation for his hard work that he has won time and again here in the Senate. Carl will be missed by this Subcommittee. I wish him all the best in his future endeavors, and thank him again for all of his excellent work for the Commerce, Justice, and State Subcommittee.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank Dereck Orr, who worked with me and my appropriations staff this last year on putting together the fiscal year 1999 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. Dereck came to me last year as a Presidential Management Intern on detail from the President's COPS office, and proved to be a tremendous asset during this difficult appropriations process. If ever there was a year to learn about Congress and the Appropriations process, it would be this year. The Commerce, Justice, State subcommittee had a long three days of debate on the floor of the Senate in July, a month-long conference with the House of Representatives, and extension of deadline after deadline in completing action on our bill and the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. Throughout this entire process, Dereck maintained poise, integrity, responsibility, and unfaltering support for me and my appropriations staff in getting the job done. He came in weekends, worked late at night, and basically worked above and beyond the call of duty. In particular, Dereck tackled the controversy-ridden issues surrounding the Census Bureau and worked with that agency and the House and Senate Appropriations staff on finding viable solutions for funding concerns and realistic means of addressing the Bureau's policy concerns. Dereck also versed himself in the Department of State title of our bill, making recommendations to staff during the conference on our bill. Dereck was truly an asset and welcome addition to my committee staff this last year. He came to me highly recommended by those that worked with him at the Department of Justice; he lived up to those recommendations and then some. Dereck is now back at COPS where they again will benefit from this excellent work. We will miss him here in the Senate, but certainly wish him, his wife, Kim, and their new addition well in all their future endeavors.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment that S. 1802, the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board (Board), failed to pass the Senate. I have spoken out in favor of the Board on many occasions. I want to reemphasize today my commitment to seeing that the Board will be in business for a long time and will be given the resources that it needs to continue its vital work. The Board is the independent economic regulatory agency that oversees the Nation's rail and surface transportation industries. A healthy transportation system is critical to sustaining a vibrant and growing economy. Under the able and forward-looking leadership of Linda Morgan, the Board's Chairman, who was with us on the Commerce Committee for many years, the Board has worked to ensure that the transportation system is both healthy and responsive. Although it was established to be principally an adjudicatory body, the Board has reached out to the transportation community in an unprecedented way. It has handled the crisis in the West appropriately, letting the private sector work it out where possible, but intervening when necessary. It has initiated proceedings at the request of Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison to review the status of access and competition in the railroad industry, and its actions have produced a mix of government action and private- sector solutions. With its staff of 135, it puts out more work than much larger agencies, issuing well-reasoned, thoughtful, and balanced decisions in tough, contentious cases. Just recently, in the Conrail acquisition case, the Board issued one such decision that is good for my State, and for the Nation. But the Board is stretched thin. It needs to train new people to replace the many employees who are likely to retire soon. And next year, it will continue to expend resources monitoring the implementation of the Conrail acquisition and the rest of the rail network. The Board needs adequate resources to do the hard work that we expect it to do. Because we need the Board, and because the Board has done a fine job, I am here today supporting a clean reauthorization bill. I supported the Staggers Act when it was passed, and I think in large part it has been a success. I know that there is some concern about how our transportation system ought to look, and that there are many important issues on the table right now. Several of those issues are being handled by the Board, in connection with its competition and access hearings. I am confident that the Board will do the right thing with the issues before it. However, some of the tougher issues that have not yet been resolved-- for example, the substantially more open access that some shippers want--are not for the Board. They are for us, and they are real. But the fact that the railroads and those who use the system have a lot of ground to cover on these legislative issues should not hold up the Board's reauthorization. Legislative change is our job. The Board, working with the law we gave it, has done its job. I want to thank the Board in general, and Chairman Morgan in particular, who has my unqualified support, for a job well done. The Nation needs agencies like the Board and public servants like Chairman Morgan.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. May I enjoin the Senator from Pennsylvania in a colloquy?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to clarify an item contained in the statement of the managers of the omnibus appropriations bill. In the health facilities section of the Health Resources and Services Administration, reference is made to a project intended for the Medical University of South Carolina. Inadvertently, the word ``Medical'' was not included in the statement of the managers; however, that word's inclusion was clearly the intent of the managers.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1802, the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Board (Board). I have spoken out in favor of the Board on many occasions. I want to reemphasize today my commitment to seeing that the Board will be in business for a long time and will be given the resources that it needs to continue its vital work. The Board is the independent economic regulatory agency that oversees the Nation's rail and surface transportation industries. A healthy transportation system is critical to sustaining a vibrant and growing economy. Under the able and forward-looking leadership of Linda Morgan, the Board's Chairman, who was with us on the Commerce Committee for many years, the Board has worked to ensure that the transportation system is both healthy and responsive. Although it was established to be principally an adjudicatory body, the Board has reached out to the transportation community in an unprecedented way. It has handled the crisis in the West appropriately, letting the private sector work it out where possible, but intervening when necessary. It has initiated proceedings at the request of Senator McCain and Senator Hutchison to review the status of access and competition in the railroad industry, and its actions have produced a mix of government action and private- sector solutions. With its staff of 135, it puts out more work than much larger agencies, issuing well-reasoned, thoughtful, and balanced decisions in tough, contentious cases. Just recently, in the Conrail acquisition case, the Board issued one such decision that is good for my State, and for the Nation. But the Board is stretched thin. It needs to train new people to replace the many employees who are likely to retire soon. And next year, it will continue to expend resources monitoring the implementation of the Conrail acquisition and the rest of the rail network. The Board needs adequate resources to do the hard work that we expect it to do. Because we need the Board, and because the Board has done a fine job, I am here today supporting a clean reauthorization bill. I supported the Staggers Act when it was passed, and I think in large part it has been a success. I know that there is some concern about how our transportation system ought to look, and that there are many important issues on the table right now. Several of those issues are being handled by the Board, in connection with its competition and access hearings. I am confident that the Board will do the right thing with the issues before it. However, some of the tougher issues that have not yet been resolved-- for example, the substantially more open access that some shippers want--are not for the Board. They are for us, and they are real. But the fact that the railroads and those who use the system have a lot of ground to cover on these legislative issues should not hold up the Board's reauthorization. Legislative change is our job. The Board, working with the law we gave it, has done its job. I want to thank the Board in general, and Chairman Morgan in particular, who has my unqualified support, for a job well done. The Nation needs agencies like the Board and public servants like Chairman Morgan.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Commerce Committee colleagues in supporting legislation to authorize the U.S. Coast Guard. This agency enjoys widespread, bipartisan support--and for good reason. The Coast Guard has an important job and does it well. Last year alone, the Coast Guard conducted 12,449 fisheries enforcement boardings; prevented 103 thousand pounds of cocaine and 102 pounds of marijuana from reaching the streets; gave safety instruction to 570 thousand recreational boaters; responded to 13,654 reports of water pollution or hazardous spills; prevented property loss of $2.5 billion; and saved almost 5,000 lives. The legislation before us today recognizes the vital contribution that the Coast Guard makes to the war on drugs. It authorizes $100 million over the President's request in fiscal year (FY) 1999 and FY 2000 for drug interdiction. This will allow the Coast Guard to conduct more operations like the one carried out by the Coast Guard Cutter Dallas in November of 1997. The Dallas, which is homeported in my hometown of Charleston, was participating in a joint surveillance operation with the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Colombian Navy. During the operation, the Dallas fired 25 warning shots in pursuit of a 40-foot boat spotted off the coast of Columbia and recovered 1 of the 2 tons of cocaine netted in the operation. This bill authorizes a Coast Guard budget of $3.8 billion for FY 1998, $4.07 billion for FY 1999, and $4.35 billion for FY 2000 covering six appropriations accounts: (1) operating expenses; (2) acquisition, construction, and improvement of equipment and facilities; (3) research and development; (4) retired pay; (5) alteration and removal of bridges; and (6) environmental compliance and restoration. In addition, it authorizes $10 million in FY 1999 and $35 million in FY 2000 for capital expenses related to LORAN-C navigation infrastructure. S. 1259 also provides for end-of-year military strength and training loads and addresses a number of Coast Guard-related administrative and policy issues. Among such issues, the bill provides for: authority to waive severance pay for officers separated with an other than honorable discharge; removal of the cap on warrant officer severance pay; use of funds for awards programs and car rental for funerals; transfer of equipment to Coast Guard Auxiliary; arrest authority for Special Agents of the Coast Guard Investigative Service; and a prohibition on new navigational assistance user fees through FY 2000. In addition, the bill enhances the Coast Guard's safety and law enforcement missions. It includes provisions to: require alcohol testing within two hours of a serious marine incident; assess national marine transportation system needs; evaluate the use of emergency position indicating beacons (EPIRBs) by operators of recreational vessels; and establish criminal penalties for the failure of a person to land an aircraft or heave to a vessel when ordered by a Federal law enforcement officer. At this point, I would like to highlight a few key provisions of S. 1259. Georgetown light S. 1259 would convey the only working lighthouse in South Carolina, the Georgetown Light on North Island in Winyah Bay, to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). SCDNR owns the property surrounding Georgetown Light and uses it as a wildlife preserve. It has been brought to my attention that the Coast Guard would like to deactivate the light inside of the lighthouse and replace it with a light on an existing tower. SCDNR and members of the community would like to see the light inside of the lighthouse maintained. But the Coast Guard is concerned that the only cost- effective way to maintain this light is through structural modifications to the old lighthouse that could mar its historic character. However, I am confident that the Coast Guard, SCDNR, historic preservation officials, and the local community will sit down and come to a mutually-agreeable solution for operating this aid to navigation. Panama Canal Tonnage Calculation At my request, the bill includes a provision to require the Panama Canal Commission to report on the methodology used to calculate tolls charged to deck container vessels. The tolls currently charged to container ships with on-deck containers are inconsistent with the 1969 International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships (ITC 69). I am concerned that the current tonnage calculation system might adversely impact the traffic of containerized cargo through the Panama Canal. I will continue to monitor the fee structure to ensure that it is fair and does not adversely impact East Coast ports such as Charleston. Navigational Assistance user fees S. 1259 would prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from implementing any new navigational assistance user fee until September 30, 2000. Such a fee might discriminate inequitably among users of Coast Guard aids to navigation. While I am not sure that the Coast Guard would have the authority to impose such a fee, I am glad that we could make the law clear on this point. Use of EPIRBs for Recreational Vessels In the past year, we have heard several tragic stories of lives lost when recreational vessels sink off of our nation's coast. Some of these vessels were close to shore and within range of Coast Guard rescuers but could not be located. They might have been found and tragedy been averted had the vessels been equipped with EPIRBs--devices which broadcast a vessel's position. While non-profit organizations like BOAT/US have encouraged EPIRB use through education and rental programs, more can be done. That is why I have included a provision to require the Coast Guard to evaluate and provide recommendations to stimulate the use and availability of EPIRBs by recreational vessels. Law Enforcement Enhancement In 1790, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton ordered the construction of Revenue Cutters to stop smuggling and enforce tariffs. Today, the Coast Guard continues that mission, facing an increasingly sophisticated threat from illegal drug smugglers. Providing new authority to deal with an old problem, S. 1259 contains Administration- requested measures to enhance law enforcement. These measures establish sanctions (including seizure and forfeiture) for failure to land an aircraft at the order of a federal officer enforcing drug or money- laundering laws, and for obstructing boarding of a vessel by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) revocation of aircraft or airman certificates for such a violation, establish Coast Guard and Customs Service air interdiction authority, and set civil penalties of $15,000 for violations of that authority. In addition, this provision requires that FAA establish conditions, based on observed conduct or prior information, for ordering a plane to land. These provisions are not intended to restrict or affect in any way the Federal Government's current broad authority to conduct border searches. Rather, they should safeguard innocent owners from concerns over unwarranted interference with their operations. I am optimistic that the bill strikes an appropriate balance with the need to assure innocent citizens that they will not be forced to land. Vessel Identification System Amendments The bill would make corrections to the Coast Guard's vessel identification system to make a vessel titled in a state eligible for Federal documentation and to ensure that a preferred mortgage remains preferred if a state title is surrendered for another state title or for federal documentation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Corps Officers Finally, S. 1259 would set a floor on Corps officers of 264 and a ceiling of 299 through FY 2003, designate a flag officer at the Director of the Corps, and lift the hiring freeze on NOAA Corps officers. The Corps has not been permitted to recruit new officers since October 1994, and this methodical, de facto elimination of positions has continued without the oversight or approval of the Congress. While we have been discussing the status of this service, the natural retirements and attrition of time have been slowly bleeding the strength out of the NOAA Corps. The Corps stands below 245 members, down 44 percent from its highest level of 439 in 1995. This provision is intended to settle the issue so that Corps officers and their families are no longer in limbo and NOAA can focus on completing its core missions. Mr. President, over the past two centuries, the U.S. Coast Guard has built an enduring reputation throughout the world for its maritime safety, environmental protection, humanitarian, and lifesaving efforts. We have all watched the valiant and often heroic work of Coast Guard seamen and officer as they rescue desperate refugees who have taken to the seas in crowded and makeshift boats. Even in the remote regions of the world, the Coast Guard is present, actively engaged in the enforcement of United Nations' embargoes against countries like the former Republic of Yugoslavia and Iraq. The men and women of the Coast Guard respond with equal dedication during times of war and peace. I ask my colleagues to recognize this service by joining me in supporting S. 1259. jones act waiver/camden iron and metal

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to congratulate two nominees, Mr. Hal Creel and Mr. John Moran, upon their confirmation to be Federal Maritime Commissioners. Hal Creel, a native of South Carolina and my former Senior Counsel on the Maritime Subcommittee, has been a Federal Maritime Commissioner for four years. He has served the last two and a half years as the agency's Chairman. As Chairman, he has demonstrated a wide-ranging knowledge of the maritime industry and an outstanding ability to oversee industry activities. Our Nation is extremely fortunate to have such a dedicated individual at the helm of this important government body. Mr. Creel and the Federal Maritime Commission are responsible for overseeing all international liner shipping in the U.S.--over $500 billion in trade. His efforts in the controversy surrounding Japan's restrictive port practices come immediately to mind. The Government of Japan for many years has orchestrated a system that impedes open trade, unjustly favors Japanese companies, and results in tremendous inefficiencies for anyone serving Japan's ports. The FMC, under Mr. Creel's guidance, met these problems head-on and he was instrumental in bringing the two governments to the bargaining table. The bilateral agreement that resulted paves the way for far-reaching changes that can remove these unfair barriers to trade. The progress made to date has occurred in large measure due to the Commission's firm, results-oriented approach. I urge him to continue to keep the Japanese honest, and to perform their agreed upon obligations. Hal Creel also has led the Commission in its efforts to resolve unfavorable trading conditions with the Peoples Republic of China and Brazil. These trades pose differing problems, but circumstances that nonetheless restrict U.S. companies or render their business dealings unnecessarily difficult or simply inefficient. Hal Creel is widely respected by all sectors of the industry as an involved, knowledgeable Chairman who can be trusted to make impartial decisions based on all relevant factors. This has been evidenced by the objective, informed decisions he renders in formal proceedings, his voting record on important agency matters, and the evenhanded enforcement program administered by the Commission. As Chairman of the FMC, Hal Creel has worked hard to curb harmful practices and create equitable trading conditions for the entire industry. He takes a personal stake in these matters and works hard to obtain compliance with the laws passed by this Congress. But those who willfully violate the law or intentionally disregard the Nation's ocean shipping policies as contained in the Shipping Act are dealt with appropriately. These are turbulent times in the liner shipping industry, times that call for effective and respected leadership from our Nation's regulatory body. Mr. Creel provides that leadership now, and I am certain will continue to do so as the industry enters the new environment that will result from the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 passed by this body last week. I am proud of the accomplishments and fine work Hal has done at the FMC. I am also proud that he is a native South Carolinian. He certainly has continued the fine tradition and excellence he has established as a staffer and senior counsel for the Senate Commerce Committee. His reappointment is well deserved. I also wish to convey my support for John Moran to become a Commissioner at the FMC. John also is a former Commerce Committee counsel who served all members of that Committee with distinction. John and Hal worked together at the Committee on a bipartisan basis, slugging through tough issues and serving all of the Members well. For my Senate colleagues who do not know Mr. Moran, his only fault is that he is not from South Carolina. He has demonstrated his abilities and intellect time and time again. He is well suited to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner. Currently, John works representing the American Waterways Operators, as their Vice President for legislative affairs. John also has an outstanding reputation within the maritime and transportation industry sectors. I congratulate these two deserving individuals, who have been appointed to the agency which plays such a critical role in international trade.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, because of my schedule I was unable to attend the vote to table the Patients' Bill of Rights. The tabling of this legislation was wrong. We are telling the American people that the insurance industry is more important than the patients. We must not let the insurance companies take the place of family physicians in deciding what is appropriate care for patients. Let me share with my colleagues a situation that occurred in South Carolina. Ms. Lisa Baughman lives in Charleston. She has a type of cancer called ``multiple myeloma.'' Her doctors at the Medical University of South Carolina are the best in the country at treating her particular condition, and they gave her chemotherapy in preparation for a bone marrow transplant. That is not a light matter, Mr. President. Anyone who has ever watched a friend or relative fight cancer knows it is serious and takes courage, prayer, and all the support you can find to go through that. Her doctors did what doctors have to do now. They called the insurance company and got ``pre-approval'' that the bone marrow transplant would be covered. But the day before the operation, the insurance company said she could not have the operation in her home town with her expert doctors. She would have to fly to another state because the insurer had a contract with a different hospital that was cheaper. This was literally the day before the operation. Can you imagine the mental anguish of going through chemotherapy, coming to the day before a bone marrow transplant, and then being told ``not now, not with your doctor, not in your state, not in your home town, who knows when''--all with your life hanging in the balance? Her doctors protested that she was too weak and needed immediate treatment. The hospital in Charleston offered to do the operation for equal or less payment than the out-of-state hospital. But the insurer would not yield and tried to fly her alone, holding her medical files in her wheelchair, to the other hospital. She got them to approve a relative to accompany her. When she arrived, there was no one to meet her at the airplane with a wheelchair, no hotel room reservation, indeed, no ``room at the inn.'' These things had been promised. So she eventually showed up at an appointment with the new doctor chosen by the insurance company to learn about her case. He said he couldn't do the operation for another three weeks, but that she should be getting her care in Charleston, South Carolina at the Medical University because they had the best people. In fact, he had been taught by the surgeon in Charleston. She had no choice but to fly home. She contracted pneumonia in her weakened condition and is in the hospital right now, trying to recover. Because of the delay, she has to go through chemotherapy again before she can have the operation. That should not happen in America. No one should be forced to go through chemotherapy twice because an insurance company overrides an expert surgeon's orders and delays critical medical treatment. It should not happen, and there is no one in this world who can do anything about it except the United States Congress. Because of a Federal statute insurers cannot be sued for making injurious medical decisions and are not accountable to many state requirements. I do not know what we tell someone like Lisa Baughman if we go home this year without fixing this problem we created. Congress has stood by and watched while ``managed'' health care has taken over. Perhaps that was the wisest course for a while, because we do not have all the solutions. But if we do not agree on basic groundrules for fairness, patients have no protection and it is a race to the bottom. We cannot blame HMO's, insurance, or anything else if the Congress continues to refuse to act. Let me list some of the groundrules that we should enact with the Patients' Bill of Rights: People trained in medicine, not accountants should make life and death medical decisions. Every patient should know their doctor is free to give his or her best advice and decide the best course of treatment, without restriction from the insurance company. Every patient should know that specialty care is available if needed. Citizens should know when they go to the emergency room, that their insurance will pay instead of haggling over the bill and denying payment afterwards. The last thing someone needs while rushing a sick child to the emergency room is a gnawing worry about payment. Women should be able to visit their OB/Gyn without going through a gatekeeper. People with longterm illnesses also should be able to see their specialists without getting a referral every time. People pay premiums to get health care, not a runaround. Some people say this is radical socialized medicine, but I think people see through that. This argument is an old red herring and it is starting to smell. What we are talking about with this Patients Bill of Rights is just the health care we always thought we had, but now it is being taken away. I have spent decades pushing medical research and building the medical research base in South Carolina. I was trying to build expertise in life-saving treatments in my home state so my constituents could be cared for, not so they could be denied and sent somewhere else on a day's notice.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we clearly cannot move forward with Medicare+Choice until the confusion over Section 4507 is resolved, and I join my colleagues in urging your earliest consideration of this matter in the 106th Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to express my continuing support for S. 1194, the Medicare Beneficiary Freedom to Contract Act. It is ironic that the Balanced Budget Act--which purported to expand seniors' freedom of choice--took away most of the rights they already had to spend their own dollars to purchase health care of their choosing. Many senior citizens and disabled individuals in my state are outraged at this loss, and justifiably so. I must concur with the comments made recently by Art Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capitol Area in an amici curiae brief in United Seniors Association vs. Donna Shalala: ``. . . the government should be able to say `We are going to provide a certain amount of health care, and that is how much we will provide and we are not going to provide more than that.' But it seems quite outrageous to us . . . that the government could say `and you may not get any more health care than we are willing to provide you, even if you and your doctor agree that it would be good for you, even if you are able to pay for it with your own funds.' '' I ask that a letter I recently sent to the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee be printed in the Record. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, October 5, 1998. Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Pat: As you know, the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area has joined as an amici curiae participant in the United Seniors Association vs Donna Shalala lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of Section 4507 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. I support the views expressed in this lawsuit that Congress made a mistake in the Balanced Budget Act by disallowing seniors from making the broadest array of physician and medical point-of-service choices in instances where they want or need services out of the Medicare system badly enough to spend their own money. It stepped far over the bounds of ``protection'' into erosion of freedom. I strongly supported requirements that physicians file Medicare claims on behalf of beneficiaries. We've gotten the program so complicated that hardly anyone understands it, but doctors are better able to fight complex coding disputes and coverage rules than their patients. Also, not getting paid adds the incentive to resolve claim disputes while keeping money in beneficiaries' pockets. Little did I realize this protection would be used to restrict access to care. Section 4507 is an unwarranted intrusion on freedom of choice for physicians and Medicare beneficiaries and adds unnecessary costs to the Medicare that is already suffering financial problems that scream for resolution. While most of us are able to find satisfactory care for which we are glad to have Medicare pay, many of my constituents have given reasons why an individual may choose to go outside the Medicare system from time to time. Take the example of a Federal employee who retired to the Charleston area after living sixty years in Washington. She wanted to return to have eye surgery at the Wilmer Eye Institute at Johns Hopkins but was prohibited from doing so because the surgeon did not accept Medicare patients. She wrote me that she is not wealthy and has chosen to live frugally so that she has something left over after living expenses to spend as she sees fit. ``What right does the Government have to tell me I can't spend my own money to buy the health care that I think I need,'' she asks. I have to agree that the Federal Government telling us senior citizens what we can do with our own money is simply unacceptable. A great deal of confusion about Section 4507 remains. I continue to believe we can reach a consensus that will permit private contracting for seniors who choose to do so while providing adequate protection for Medicare beneficiaries and request that you give this matter your much respected expert consideration early in the 106th Congress. If I can answer any questions or be of any help, please don't hesitate to call on me. With kindest regards, I am, Sincerely, Ernest F. Hollings.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the South Carolina Semester in Washington Program, hosted by the Institute of Public Affairs at the University of South Carolina, provides outstanding Honors College students at the state's public universities an invaluable opportunity to work as fellows in Congress, the Administration and in the private sector while pursuing an academically rigorous program of study and examination in Washington, D.C. This program joins a number of other prestigious offerings sponsored by many of the finest colleges and universities from across the Nation. Not only do these fellows assist in taking care of the business of the Nation, providing a tremendous service to Congress, the Agencies and the entities supporting them, by doing so these exemplary young people represent the best for the future of government at the local, city, county, state, regional, national and international levels. As the South Carolina Semester in Washington completes its seventh year, the program continues to demonstrate that these students and the campuses they represent are some of the finest in the country. To date students have participated from USC Columbia, Clemson University, the College of Charleston, the Citadel, South Carolina State University, University South Carolina Aiken, Winthrop University, Lander University and the University of South Carolina Lancaster. For the Fall of 1998, the program will add its first student from Coastal Carolina University. Certainly few states can demonstrate a more comprehensive involvement from its higher education community. The offices which participate are essential to the quality of the program. The time spent by professional staff in the office setting mentoring these students is a contribution to success; not only in this program but to these young people for a lifetime. Over the years the following offices have been gracious host learning sites for the South Carolina Semester in Washington fellows: Senator Strom Thurmond, Senator Fritz Hollings, Congressman Floyd Spence, Congressman John Spratt, Congressman Jim Clyburn, Congressman Bob Inglis, Congressman Lindsey Graham, Congressman Sanford, Congressman Ed Whitfield, Congressman Cliff Stearns, former Congressman Butler Derrick, former Congressman Robin Tallon, former Congresswoman Liz Patterson, former Congressman Arthur Ravenel, the Senate Commerce Committee, the White House, the Department of Education, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the South Carolina State Washington Office, Barron Birrell and the American Council of Life Insurance. The participants during the 1997-1998 academic year further enhanced the reputation of the program for reliable, diligent and intelligent contributions to their workplace. These students, their university, hometown and placement include for the Fall 1997 semester: Mary Borowiec, USC Columbia, Columbia, S.C., Congressman Lindsey Graham; Cara Carter, USC Columbia, Spartanburg, S.C., Congressman Mark Sanford; Katherine Graham, USC Columbia, Charleston, S.C., Office of the United States Trade Representative; Scott Harris, Lander University, Batesburg, S.C., Congressman John Spratt, Kim Hartwell, USC Columbia, Lexington, Kentucky, the White House; Charlene Miller, USC Columbia, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Senator Hollings; John Sallee, USC Columbia, Lexington, Kentucky, U.S. Department of Education; Beth Sims, Winthrop University, Darlington, S.C., Congressman Bob Inglis; Amber Stamegna, USC Columbia, Mount Pleasant, S.C., Barron Birrell. For the Spring 1998 semester, the participants include: Heather Brooks, USC Columbia, Charlotte, North Carolina, Congressman John Spratt; Derham Cole, USC Columbia, Spartanburg, S.C., Congressman Bob Inglis; Ryan Lindsay, USC Columbia, Clemson, S.C., American Council of Life Insurance; Anne Knight, USC Columbia, Columbia, S.C., Congressman Jim Clyburn; Amy Milligan, College of Charleston, Mount Pleasant, S.C., Congressman Floyd Spence; Becky Sibilia, Clemson University, Bridgewater, New Jersey, Senator Strom Thurmond; Josh Staveley- O'Carroll, Clemson University, Charleston, S.C., Senate Commerce Committee. Mr. President, I wish to commend the Institute of Public Affairs at the University of South Carolina for implementing and coordinating such a fine program. Dr. Doug Dobson and Dr. William Mould have been instrumental in the successful tenure of this offering. I also wish to salute the other campuses and offices which make the effort to give quality to this endeavor. Finally to say well done to these outstanding students in hopes we will enjoy their contributions to society from positions of leadership in the years to come.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from New Mexico. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Little Toot, Official Number 938858, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. Code. The Little Toot was constructed in Panama City, Florida in 1988. It is a tender vessel, which can be used also as a small tugboat, and was constructed by Marine Fabricators for Structures, Inc. It is 25.2 feet long, 12.2 feet wide, 4.1 feet deep, and self-propelled. The vessel was purchased by Marinex Construction Company, Inc. of Johns Island, South Carolina, which purchased it in 1997 for intended use as a working tugboat in the harbor of Charleston, SC. The vessel has never been registered with the Coast Guard and has been sold a number of times. U.S. documentation laws require documentary proof of continuous U.S. ownership. The current owner has not been able to locate all the necessary documentation to prove continuous U.S. ownership, and therefore I am introducing legislation to waive the requirements of the coastwise trade law. The owner of the Little Toot is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel as a tugboat. His desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Little Toot to engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Little Toot, Official Number 938858, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. Code. The Little Toot was constructed in Panama City, Florida in 1988. It is a tender vessel, which can be used also as a small tugboat, and was constructed by Marine Fabricators for Structures, Inc. It is 25.2 feet long, 12.2 feet wide, 4.1 feet deep, and self-propelled. The vessel was purchased by Marinex Construction Company, Inc. of Johns Island, South Carolina, which purchased it in 1997 for intended use as a working tugboat in the harbor of Charleston, SC. The vessel has never been registered with the Coast Guard and has been sold a number of times. U.S. documentation laws require documentary proof of continuous U.S. ownership. The current owner has not been able to locate all the necessary documentation to prove continuous U.S. ownership, and therefore I am introducing legislation to waive the requirements of the coastwise trade law. The owner of the Little Toot is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel as a tugboat. His desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Little Toot to engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United States.