Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleague Senator Cochran in introducing legislation that helps define the rules of the game for health care providers and allows investigators to focus on ferreting out and prosecuting real fraud in Federal health programs. The Health Care Claims Guidance Act of 1998 that we introduce today is made necessary by conflicting, extremely complex regulations covering Medicare, Medicaid, CHAMPS and other Federally funded programs. Ironically, most of these exist as a result of Congressional efforts to reduce fraud and abuse--to establish a system for billing and claims processing that assures these programs are paying reasonable costs for medically necessary services actually provided to eligible individuals. Not achieving our goal of ending fraud, we just stack on more rules that require honest providers to take more and more time from patient care to do paperwork while the crooks ignore us or accept as a challenge getting around the rules. There is no end in sight. This is a classic example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. We have created a nightmare, and we have a responsibility to begin straightening out some of the confusion so honest health care providers can take care of patients and we can concentrate on prosecuting those who willfully violate the law. It is absolutely imperative that we accept nothing less than zero tolerance for real fraud and that the Government use all the tools at its disposal to prosecute willful violations of the law. It is equally imperative that we play fair with our partners who provide the health care we pay for with Federal funds. When a participating hospital receives directions from its fiscal intermediary, the hospital should know it can follow those directions without fear of being accused of fraud. Using the False Claims Act, the Justice Department is notifying hospitals that they are under investigation for alleged billing fraud, offering minimal time to respond or face prosecution. Hospitals are capitulating to these demands even when they know no fraud has been committed simply because they cannot afford to pay the accountants and lawyers to take on the Department of Justice. Others believe diverting these funds from patient care would be an irresponsible waste of tax dollars and not in the best interests of Medicare beneficiaries. I certainly agree. Respected physicians in my State, some personal friends of forty years, have received letters recently from the ``Medicare Fraud Unit'' demanding that they pay up immediately or face prosecution. They are confused and annoyed about the complexity of Medicare rules and coding, but they are outraged that they are being accused of fraud with no basis whatsoever. I submit, Mr. President, that they deserve to be enraged. And it doesn't get any better once they enter negotiations and are virtually unable to practice medicine because of the auditors consume most of the work day and office space. Then they wait for months to see if the ax will fall. The Health Care Claims Guidance Act of 1998 would take a small but important step in the right direction. It would amend the False Claims Act to create special rules for claims in all Federally funded health care programs. No criminal provisions are amended. The bill's provisions apply only to health care claims limited to civil actions. First, no action can be brought if the provider has relied on and correctly applied information supplied by a Federal agency or an agent thereof. Second, no action may be brought unless the amount of damages is material. Third, it establishes a safe harbor for hospitals with an effective compliance plan under the General Hospital Compliance Guidelines. And, fourth, it raises the burden of proof from a ``preponderance of the evidence'' to a ``clear and convincing evidence'' standard. Mr. President, let me make it clear once again, this bill in no way limits the authority of the Government to recoup or otherwise recover damages with respect to claims under any other provisions of law and does not apply to criminal provisions. It allows us to begin restoring the partnership between the Federal Government and those who provide health care under Federal programs and encourages the Government to use its resources to prosecute those who violate that partnership. I urge my colleagues to assist us in its early passage.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, as it has for the past three days, the South mourns the passing of one of its greatest leaders. Terry Sanford, former Governor of and United States Senator from North Carolina, passed away on Saturday, April 18, 1998. From 1961 to 1965, Governor Sanford forged a remarkable record as one of America's most progressive governors. His great passions were education, civil rights, and social justice. Perhaps his bravest act as Governor, and the one that posed the greatest political risk, was to encourage the people of North Carolina to accept the winds of change that swept the South during the 1960s. In a 1963 speech, for example, he implored the people of North Carolina to end job discrimination against blacks and announced the creation of a biracial panel, the North Carolina Good Neighbor Council, to work toward that end. He also appointed many black North Carolinians to important positions in his administration and publicly supported school integration. The other hallmark of Governor Sanford's administration was his commitment to education. He pushed state lawmakers to provide more money to schools and laid the foundation that has helped make the North Carolina higher education system one of the best in the world. As a true intellectual and lover of the humanities, Terry Sanford understood the importance of ideas for their own sake. But he also was a practical man, and he realized that a well-educated populace is crucial to attracting new corporations and creating good jobs. Thanks to his vision, North Carolina now is home to one of the best-educated populations in the nation, and it is a leader in creating high-paying, high-tech jobs. From 1969 to 1985, Senator Sanford was President of Duke University. He was one of that institution's most vigorous and successful presidents, inspiring loyalty and love among faculty and students and helping the University increase its endowment and improve its resources. As President of Duke, Terry Sanford did great things for not just the students, but all the people of North Carolina. Under his hand, Duke joined North Carolina State and the University of North Carolina as part of the vaunted Research Triangle, which has generated high-tech jobs for North Carolina and helped the state secure a reputation as one of the best locations in the country for companies and their workers. President Sanford dedicated himself completely to Duke; he was driven to serve the school by the same passion for education and material and intellectual progress which had guided his governorship. Discontent with the direction in which our nation was headed and the seemingly intractable problems that had beset the political process drove Senator Sanford to offer himself for the Democratic nomination for President in 1972 and 1976. Although both his candidacies were unsuccessful, Terry ran with conviction and courage. Above all, he ran to oppose those who offered no alternative to confusion other than darkness, who would have replaced idealism with cynicism, and who practiced the politics of division rather than unity. Terry Sanford achieved national office in 1986, when the people of North Carolina elected him to the United States Senate. During his term, Senator Sanford was one of the ablest and most conscientious legislators this body has ever seen. He maintained his well-deserved reputation for decency, integrity, and intelligence; continued to show great interest in education and social policies; and never flagged in his commitment to the public good. After being narrowly defeated for reelection in 1992, Senator Sanford returned to Duke University, where he taught courses on public policy and government. As an outstanding educator, he continued to enrich his students' lives and devote himself to the dissemination of knowledge. Mr. President, Terry Sanford's death is a loss for North Carolina, this nation, and this Senate. He embodied the best of public service and education. His tremendous accomplishments were recognized and appreciated for over 30 years by the people of North Carolina. Increasingly, they have been recognized throughout the nation as well. In 1981, for example, a Harvard University study named Terry Sanford one of the ten best governors in the nation in this century. This was high praise, but Terry surely deserved it. With his passing, our nation has lost one of its most tireless public servants. We in the Senate have lost a cherished colleague and loyal friend. Fortunately for us all, Terry Sanford's legacy will live on in the educational institutions of North Carolina to which he gave so much and in the example he set for those of us who aspire to public service. Mr. President, of everything that has been said and written about our dear friend Terry Sanford, no one has said it better than Governor Jim Hunt of North Carolina, in the eulogy he delivered at Senator Sanford's funeral. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Governor Hunt's eulogy be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hutchison, Lott, and Breaux amendment to S. 414. This amendment reflects a fair and reasoned compromise among the various interests affected by the bill. While I am no great fan of deregulation, I do believe that it is necessary to balance the interests affected by the bill in order not to adversely impact or destroy any particular sector. I am particularly pleased that the amendment preserves the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) as an independent agency to oversee our waterborne foreign commerce. As introduced and reported out of Committee, S. 414 would have merged the FMC and Surface Transportation Board (STB) into a new entity to be known as the Intermodal Transportation Board (ITB), placed within the Department of Transportation (DOT). The Hutchison, Lott, and Breaux amendment alleviates several problems with this approach. In the first place, there are no overlaps in jurisdiction or functions between the FMC and the STB that in any way hamper effective regulation. There are simply no significant synergies between the FMC's mandate to protect U.S. international ocean commerce and the STB's responsibilities with respect to domestic railroad mergers, rate regulation, and the like. Moreover, given the two vastly different constituencies and the two entirely different systems of regulation, there would have been a continuing struggle to determine priorities and to allocate scarce resources within a merged agency. Lastly, even though there might be some marginal savings in administrative expenses from such a merger, these would be offset by the more substantial costs of combining and relocating the two agencies. I understand that when the FMC was required by the General Services Administration to relocate in 1992, the moving costs to the government were $1 million. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that if the two agencies were merged, the ``ongoing costs to carry out the new board's responsibilities would be about the same as those incurred by the FMC and the STB under current law.'' Clearly then, the combining of these two agencies could not be justified by any cost savings that would accrue to the government. I would also note that during the ocean shipping reform process, the vast majority of the commenters have supported an independent, free- standing agency to oversee our waterborne foreign commerce. Those sentiments were initially expressed by the South Carolina State Ports Authority and have subsequently been endorsed by many others. This includes the three U.S. shipping companies who otherwise supported the bill but stated that ``the Federal Maritime Commission has done a superb job,'' and ``[o]ur strong preference would be to preserve the agency's structure as an independent agency.'' Others who joined in support of an independent FMC include: the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union; the Transportation Trades Department, AFL- CIO; the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, Inc.; the NY/NJ Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association; the Council of European and Japanese National Shipowners' Association; and the American Association of Port Authorities, as well as many individual port authorities. Further, it is my understanding that the coalition supporting this amendment supports, in toto, the retention of the FMC in its present form. A change in the agency's structure could serve to fracture that fragile coalition of support for the amendment. Another reason I support the amendment is that merging the FMC into the STB would have sent the wrong message to our trading partners-- i.e., that the new agency would be constrained from taking direct and immediate action against unfair foreign shipping practices. The FMC has been able to effectively combat unfair trading practices of foreign governments largely because of its status as an independent agency. The agency has an international reputation for aggressively and swiftly addressing restrictive shipping practices without the threat of diplomatic interference or retaliation in other sectors. In fact, I would hope that some of our other trade agencies could learn a thing or two from the FMC. Both the Department of State and DOT regularly cite the FMC's independence to persuade foreign governments that maritime issues must be addressed directly and expeditiously. In fact, Admiral Herberger, former Administrator of the Maritime Administration (MarAd), testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee that the FMC's independent status has been critical to MarAd's success in negotiations with foreign governments. Also, in his August 5, 1997, letter to the Japanese Ministry of Transport, Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater cited the FMC's authority to impose sanctions while urging Japan to reform its port practices. The agency's recent actions against Japanese port restrictions are a perfect example of its successful accomplishments. The agency took decisive action to address Japanese intransigence on easing restrictions which impede the operations of U.S. carriers. As an independent agency, the FMC did not have to overcome the hurdles or various pressures imposed by other Executive branch departments within the Administration that have competing interests. And this body, by a 100 to zero vote, in S. Res. 140, endorsed the action taken by the FMC to respond to the unfair practices of Japan. Supporting this amendment and the FMC ensures that the agency's effectiveness will not be impeded, and sends the right message to our trading partners: that the U.S. Congress endorses an aggressive stance against foreign-imposed restrictions on open competition in shipping. I would further note that by retaining the FMC as an independent agency, the amendment alleviates the concern of some that merging the FMC and STB into a new entity could violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, to the extent that STB members would be accruing new responsibilities unrelated to those for which they were appointed and confirmed, and could accordingly subject the new agency to challenges that it is not legally constituted. The amendment offered by Senators Hutchison, Lott, and Breaux corrects a major and potentially disastrous flaw in S. 414. I support this amendment enthusiastically. (At the request of Mr. Daschle the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, elected upon a promise to eliminate ``waste, fraud and abuse,'' President Ronald Reagan appointed the Grace Commission to root through the government, eliminating obsolete programs and those whose costs exceeded their benefits. At the conclusion of its crusade the Grace Commission published a thick book entitled ``War on Waste.'' Ironically at that very moment the biggest waste of all was being created--a soaring debt and wasteful interest costs. Everyone with a credit card realizes there is no free lunch. The amount you borrow must be paid back--plus interest costs on the amount borrowed. Government is no different. As the national debt increases, interest costs compound and must be paid annually. Historically, interest costs have not been a burden. From the beginning of the Republic until 1981, borrowing of the United States for all government including the cost of all the wars from the Revolution through World War II, Korea and Vietnam was less than one trillion dollars. And interest cost was less than $100 million. But in the past 17 years without the cost of a war (Desert Storm paid for by the Kuwaitis and Saudis), the national debt has quintupled to $5.6 trillion; and interest costs on the debt have increased to $365 billion a year. Spending of a billion a day for interest is added to the debt, increasing the debt and increasing the spending for interest. With a gas tax, we obtain highways; with this interest ``tax,'' we get nothing. Waste! Tragically, this waste goes unnoticed. This is intended. The scam is known as the ``unified budget.'' The ``unified budget'' is not the actual income and spending of government. Rather it is the spending by government beyond its income while reporting a smaller deficit by borrowing from the special purposes funds. Of course, this doesn't reduce the deficit; it just moves the deficit out of sight from general government into these trust funds. For example, the actual deficit for FY 1998 as reported by the Congressional Budget Office is $153 billion. But the President and Congress report a ``unified'' deficit of $7.7 billion by borrowing $161 billion from various trust funds. Accordingly, we have created deficits in the following trust funds: Social Security--$732 billion; Medicare--$146 billion; Military Retirement--$133 billion; Civilian Retirement--$460 billion; Unemployment Compensation--$72 billion; Highways--$23 billion; Airports--$10 billion; Railroad Retirement--$20 billion; All Others-- $55 billion. It should be emphasized that for Social Security this is against the law. In 1983, the Greenspan Commission called for a high payroll tax with the intent of not just balancing the Social Security budget but to build a surplus to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers in the next century. Section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report called for the Social Security Trust to be removed from the ``unified budget'' so that the fund could remain solvent to the year 2056. Accordingly, President Bush signed Section 13301 of the Budget Act prohibiting the President or Congress from reporting a budget using Social Security trust funds. But the President and the Congress continue to ignore the law. They do so with the sanction of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan and the financial world. Corporate America would rather government incur these horrendous deficits than come into the bond market with its sharp elbows, crowding out corporate finance and raising interest rates. There's a difference between the corporate economy and the country's economy. The corporate economy has as its goal higher profits. The country's economy has as its goal the good of society. For example, the corporate economy reaps higher profits by moving its manufacture offshore to a low wage country. But the country's economy suffers from a loss of manufacturing jobs. A nation's strength rests as if upon a three-legged stool. The one leg of values is unquestioned: the United States readily sacrifices to feed the hungry in Somalia and bring democracy to Haiti and Bosnia. The second leg of military strength is unquestioned. The third leg of economic strength has become fractured. For 50 years we sacrificed our economy in order to keep the alliance together in the Cold War. We willingly gave up markets and manufacture. While today's industry is competitive, valuable high-paying manufacturing jobs have become depleted. In the past 10 years, the United States has gone from 26% of its work force in manufacture to 13%. At a forum of Third World countries, the former head of Sony, Akio Morita stated that the emerging countries must develop a strong manufacturing sector in order to become a nation state. And then Morita admonished, ``That world power which loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.'' Perhaps Morita had in mind the materials of basic production or defense. But more importantly manufacture is the job of the middle class. As you lose your middle class, you lose the strength of democracy. Sure, employment is at an all-time high. But service and part-time jobs are replacing the high-paid manufacturing jobs. The corporate economy wins, the country economy loses. The North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico was an instrument of the corporate economy. Europe had long since abandoned the free trade approach for that of the common market. For a common market, there first must be developed entities of a free market such as property rights, labor rights, rights of appeal, a respected judiciary, etc. The Europeans taxed themselves some $5 billion over four years, building up these institutions of a free market in Greece and Portugal before joining in a trade treaty. Mexico has not developed these institutions. Ignoring experience, the corporate economy bulled its way for NAFTA approval and the results are well known. Promised an increase of 200,000 jobs, the United States has lost 400,000. Promised an increase in our balance of trade, the $5 billion plus balance has been replaced by a $17 billion negative balance. Promised an improvement in the drug problem, the drug problem has worsened. Promised a diminution in immigration from Mexico, it has increased. Even the Mexican worker has suffered a 20% loss in take-home pay. The $12 billion that the United States has paid out in bail-out--the monies that could have installed the institutions of a free market--have gone back to Wall Street. The corporate economy has benefitted with cheaper production in Mexico. But the country's economy is weakened. South Carolina, with all of its new industry, has suffered a net loss of 14,000 manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. The ``unified budget'' that projects surpluses is a loser. When the country borrows from its trust funds, it really doesn't borrow; it just moves the deficit out of sight. Corporate America could care less. They don't have to pay the bills. They don't have to worry about the future of America. But we in public office do. A day of reckoning is at hand. Already the biggest spending item in our budget is interest costs on the national debt. Bigger than defense. Bigger than Social Security. All waste. Should interest costs return to their normal rate of 10 years ago, then by 2003, we will have to spend in excess of $500 billion on interest charges--an annual waste of $500 billion. At that time, we will owe Social Security and the pension funds over $2 trillion. Forced to raise money for these obligations, Congress will be scrambling to find enough money for entitlements and a limited defense much less obligations. There will be little money left for general government. At present, foreigners have been willing to buy the bonds, and lend the money to finance our deficits. In fact, they use their substantial holdings to leverage prevalence in trade negotiations by threatening from time to time to sell. Fearful that this will increase rates, our negotiators give in. Now with the Pacific Rim economy in shambles, it shouldn't surprise anyone if they don't show up at the next bond sales. Immediately, we would have higher interest rates. Today we have a foreign debt of $1.2 trillion. Already we have gone from the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor. According to the CBO, the FY 1998 budget is in deficit $184.1 billion. Instead of surpluses, CBO projects deficits for the next five years for the sum total of $905 billion. But all across the land one hears shouts of ``Balanced Budgets'' and ``Surpluses as far as the eye can see.'' We are wasting with fiscal cancer, But the American people don't know. The media have put them to sleep with the ``unified budget.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, President Clinton's visit to Africa is a historic visit, the first time a sitting American President has visited that continent. For a distinguished South Carolinian who is accompanying the President, the trip also marks the return to a land with which he is very familiar. Bishop Fred James, a retired Bishop of the AME Church, is one of South Carolina's most respected men of the cloth. For four years in the 1970s, he served in Capetown, South Africa, as the presiding bishop of the AME Church for five countries: South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland, and Mozambique. During Bishop James's tenure, the Church conducted not only traditional religious activities, but also unorthodox outreach programs to improve the lives of its congregants. Among other things, it built schools, operated a publishing house, and ran a cattle ranch. None of these was strictly religious in nature, but all helped to relieve the oppressive atmosphere of these countries and restore a sense of community among the AME Church's congregants. After returning from Africa, Bishop James continued to lead outreach programs and fight for civil rights at home. Before settling in South Carolina, he was active in the NAACP and lived in Arkansas and Oklahoma. He also lived in Baltimore, where his responsibilties as Bishop overseeing thousands of congregants and many churches were even greater than those he shouldered in Africa. As the people of South Carolina know so well, Bishop James has been a force for good in every community in which he has lived. Mr. President, I can think of no better ambassador of our nation's good will toward Africa than Bishop Fred James. He has spent the better part of his life serving God and his fellow men, without expecting recognition or reward. With his selection by President Clinton to be an informal, good will ambassador to Africa, he has at last received some of both. Let us all hope the United States can achieve the same, strong relationship with Africa as that of Bishop James.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this more or less puts into parliamentary procedure what we voted for time and again, what the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has voted for. It is in the law, section 13301, that we save Social Security and quit looting the fund. If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, as the expression goes, rather than just a sense of the Senate, then support this particular resolution now under consideration and put on some parliamentary controls, which is what this amendment does. If you want to save Social Security, vote for the amendment; waive the Budget Act, because that is what the Budget Act says to do in section 13301. If you don't want to, vote against the waiver.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Conrad, Senator Feingold, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Reid of Nevada, we put this in to do just exactly what was called for by the President. We want to save Social Security first. As we all know, we have used the euphemism of a unified budget, a unified deficit, and we have been spending, looting, the Social Security trust fund. Some say that actuarially there is a surplus in there. That is on a sheet of paper. Actually, the money is gone.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Just requiring a 60-vote margin relating to the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2193 on behalf of Senator Daschle, Senator Conrad, Senator Feingold, Senator Dorgan and Senator Reid of Nevada.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, this goes right to the point of the requirement of a 60-vote supermajority in order to spend the Social Security funds or report a budget with respect to Social Security funds. It conforms to the sense of the Senate that the Members will find on page 37 and 38 of the concurrent resolution itself. We passed in the Budget Committee the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying the functional totals included in this resolution assume that Congress and the President should continue to rid our country of debt and work to balance the budget without counting Social Security trust fund surpluses. There was, of course, a unanimous vote in the Budget Committee. Incidentally, it was partly a response to the clarion call of the President of the United States, in his State of the Union address to the joint session of Congress, that we ``save Social Security first.'' And, incidentally, some 8 years ago, 98 Senators voted for the very same thing. The reason for the 98-Senator vote back in 1990 was to comply with the suggestions of the Greenspan Commission on Social Security. The Greenspan Commission in 1983 suggested a very high payroll tax, not just to balance Social Security's budget, but also to build up a surplus for the baby boomers in the next generation. For example, the Commission's report included projections to the year 2056. We have constantly heard on the floor of the Congress, in both Houses, ``Oh, the baby boomers are going to cause a problem, the baby boomers are going to cause a problem in the next generation.'' Not at all, not at all, Madam President. The fact is, if we quit looting the Social Security trust fund, we could get along well with just minor adjustments to the Social Security program. The problem is being caused not by the baby boomers, but by the adults on the floor of the Congress itself--in that we have this euphemism called the unified budget. Let me tell you about that unified budget. The unified budget is a device of the financial community, of corporate America, of the Federal Reserve Board, to keep interest rates low. They could care less about the burden of having to pay the bill. They are not Congressmen. They are not Senators. They don't have to face up to the present deficit of $631 billion we owe Social Security now, or the $1.2 trillion this government will owe Social Security by the end of the budget under consideration. We are going right up against the wall. We will owe this money and then someone will say, ``Well, we can't raise taxes.'' Someone is going to say, ``Well, we have to raise the age.'' Then someone will say, ``We have to limit the benefits.'' These are the remarks we can expect to hear in this Congress at the turn of the century. The President, to his credit, grabbed ahold of this particular issue, which we have been working on for years. He said, ``Save Social Security first.'' We passed, already, one sense of the Senate by a vote of 100 to nothing. We passed the one I now propose by 20 to nothing in the Budget Committee. I would like to remark on a comment made in the Commerce Committee's markup of the tobacco bill just a few moments ago, when the distinguished chairman turned to another Senator and said, ``Now, wait a minute, is this a sense of the Senate?'' And the Senator responded, ``No, this is real. This counts.'' I want, and I am sure every Senator here wants, the desire to save Social Security to count. One of the best ways to make sure it counts here is to require--for the first time on the parliamentary treatment of issues here, in the reading of bills and concurrent resolutions--at least a 60-vote supermajority margin in order to spend Social Security surpluses, or list them, or waive the requirement they not be expended. To return to the Greenspan Commission report for a moment, I believe that report was very judicious in its vision with respect to the baby boomers. The report said we know we have this high tax and we are going to have surpluses. But we want to make sure these surpluses are not expended by some tricky device called a unified budget, or a unified deficit. Section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report required just that, that Social Security be put off-budget. After the Commission made its report, we struggled within the Budget Committee for years to implement its suggestions. It wasn't until 1990 that we finally were able to require, by a vote of 20 to 1, that trust funds be taken off- budget. And then, on the floor of the Senate, by a vote of 98 to 2, we passed section 13301 of the statutory law of the Budget Act--which was then passed by the House and signed into law by President Bush on November 5, 1990. Section 13301, which I have a copy of now, prohibited Congress from including Social Security trust funds in the budget. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record at this particular point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. As you can see, we passed the law. But it has been ignored. And we are ignoring it again, Madam President, because if you look on page 67 of the committee's report, you will find at the bottom line: ``on budget for 1998, minus $95.6 billion.'' Then: ``off budget, $103.4 billion.'' The report then states a total surplus of ``$7.8 billion.'' That is not the actual deficit, Madam President--not at all. That is the so-called unified deficit, which its adherents arrive at by looting trust funds. But if you look on page 5 of the resolution itself, you will see the deficit is listed for fiscal year 1999 as $108.2 billion. This is a far cry from a surplus. That is in response to section 13301. That is the actual deficit. Just go down one step further to the section, on that same page 5, labeled ``Public debt.'' You will find that from 1998 to 1999, in the present budget under consideration, all you need to do to compute the actual deficit is to subtract the increase in the national debt. That is the actual spending that occurs that we do not pay for. That is the actual outlay that is not taken care of by revenues themselves. You only have to do simple arithmetic to find that for the year 1999, according to this present budget under consideration, the deficit will be $186.3 billion. Madam President, it is interesting, in this time of headlines that tout surpluses as far as the eye can see, to just look at the deficits for the next 5 years--the additions to the national debt. You will see that they add up each year to a total of $905 billion. In other words, under the budget currently being considered, the government will spend almost $1 trillion more than it receives in revenue. Yet, we have people claiming on the floor of the Congress, and in newspapers and editorials, ``Look at what a wonderful job we have done.'' The fact is, instead of balancing the budget, instead of continuing to lower deficits as we have done 6 years in a row--and I give the current administration credit for having done so --we are going to turn and change course and, for the first time now with this 1999 concurrent resolution for this particular budget for 1999, we will increase rather than lower the deficit. We will increase the deficit some $32 billion. We will go from $153 to $186 billion--$31 billion, not counting decimals here. That is $31 billion that we are increasing the deficit. Madam Chairman, I would like to return to the original point: some kind of parliamentary restriction to bring sobriety to this body, to prevent politicians from claiming, ``I voted for a sense of the Senate; I voted not to spend Social Security.'' That was just not real. That was just a sense of the Senate. This resolution would be binding at least for a 60-vote majority. It ought to really have 100 votes, because that is what we voted time and time again when actually voted on. I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin. He has been a Trojan in the trenches working on the same side. I ask unanimous consent to add the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, as a cosponsor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico doesn't have to remind the Senator from South Carolina that we are doing better than we were 6 years ago, because this Senator voted for that particular plan, which included spending cuts and which included tax increases to get this economy turned around. It included a tax increase on Social Security, as well. And we didn't get a single Republican vote for that Budget Act--not one vote from that side of the aisle. Now the Senator from New Mexico says we are borrowing $10 billion. Turn, if you please, to the analysis of the President's budget proposal by the Congressional Budget Office put out the day before yesterday. On page 36, you will find the actual debt increases to $184 billion. So we are not borrowing $10 billion less. The actual facts, according to the Congressional Budget Office, are that we are borrowing $31 billion more. Tell me about the budgets and requirements of the Budget Committee supermajority. You have to get a supermajority to get the tobacco money. Why not a supermajority to protect Social Security? We have section 13301 of the Budget Act itself that is a firewall anyone disobeys when he spends that money.

Mr. HOLLINGS. If I need more time, I can get some, I guess, off the resolution. But let me hear it. My time has expired.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, pursuant to Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of the pending amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Can we get the yeas and nays?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Appropriations Supplemental contains a provision sponsored by myself, the Appropriations Committee Chairman, Senator Stevens, and the Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator McCain, requiring the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to submit a report to Congress by May 8, 1998. My provision requires the FCC to do several things. First, it directs the FCC to cure the defects found by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in the program's administrative structure. The GAO found that the FCC's implementation of schools/libraries program violated the Government Corporations Control Act (GCCA) in setting up independent corporations to administer the schools/libraries program. Mr. President, when the Congress wants to establish a separate corporation to administer a program it does so. That's why Congress set up the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The FCC does not have such unilateral authority to go creating a corporation because it wants to. The report also asks detailed questions about how much money will be needed to fund the program and how the FCC intends to collect the money. The goal is to administer the program without raising telephone rates. Therefore, the report asks detailed questions that are necessary to put the FCC on record to justify the cost of the program. The FCC made commitments to Congress that schools/libraries program would not raise rates and I intend to ensure that the agency keeps its word. If the FCC does not deliver on its commitments to protect consumers from rate increases, Congress will step in and make the FCC accountable. Finally, my amendment also directs the FCC to cap the salary of the program's administrator at a government salary--as opposed to the $250,000 salary the FCC set up. I support the program but the Congress must take measures such as these to ensure that the agency administers the law and policy that the Congress adopts. It is not the FCC's job to adopt policies which exceed the authority given to it by the Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I would like to mourn the passing of a great woman and pay tribute to her legacy. On March 11, one of the leading lights of the Charleston theater community, Patricia Colbert Robinson, was extinguished. Mrs. Robinson was a well-known and beloved Charleston author, poet, playwright, and actress. Together with her husband, Emmett E. Robinson Jr., and fellow actress Dorothy D'Anna, she ran the Footlight Players, Charleston's community theater group, for almost three decades. In addition to acting in many of the Players' productions, Mrs. Robinson helped raise money and organized publicity for their events. Patricia Robinson was a woman of many talents, and her interests encompassed all the arts. She once won first place in the Poetry Society of South Carolina spring forum. In addition to her poems, she wrote or co-authored seven novels. She also wrote for the Charleston News and Courier and The Charleston Evening Post. Mrs. Robinson set many of her stories in Charleston and portrayed the city with a fine eye for detail and much love. Surprisingly, she was not a native Southerner. She was born and reared in Pittsburgh, but moved to Charleston in 1944. Nonetheless, she loved the city as ardently as its longest residents and always exhibited a great passion for its architecture, history, and people. Charlestonians reciprocated by embracing her as a neighbor and honorary native daughter. With the passing of Patricia Colbert Robinson, Charleston has lost one of its most beloved literary and artistic figures. The people of Charleston have lost a beloved friend who entertained them on the stage and on paper, and who reminded them in beautiful prose of the rich history and beauty of their city. She will be much missed.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am happy to cosponsor, along with Senators McCain, Inouye, Hutchison, Lott, and Ford, this bill to reauthorize appropriations for the Surface Transportation Board (Board). The Board is the independent agency which oversees the nation's rail transportation industry. The Board also has some authority over the interstate bus system, pipeline system, and rail labor-management disputes. It should be said that the Congress gave this small agency, with less than 150 people, the job that had been done by the old Interstate Commerce Commission with, at its peak, 1600 people. We demanded that the Board do more with less and we demanded that it be evenhanded, fair-minded, and tackle some very tough, contentious issues. I am happy to report that the Board has done all of that and more. Since its inception, the Board has had a pending caseload of between 400 and 500 adjudications related to all of its functions. The number of rail cases pending at the Board remains relatively constant because, even as cases are resolved, new cases are filed. Even with its relatively meager resources the Board has met every rulemaking deadline set by Congress in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. It has resolved close to 200 motor carrier undercharge cases. It has set and met deadlines and established simplified procedures for handling pending cases. It has also dealt with the important and difficult issue of rail carriers providing rates to shippers in the so- called ``bottleneck'' cases. While this issue is now before the courts, it is the Board that has tried to steer a course allowing the rail carriers to earn a decent return on their investment while providing shippers with needed transportation at reasonable rates. In the area of rail regulation, the Board has worked on several important rail restructuring cases, including several complex line construction cases, the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger, and the pending Conrail acquisition case (in which approximately 80 decisions have already been issued). It has tackled the rail service emergency in the West in many ways, including its issuance of an emergency service order on October 31, 1997, which has been extended and expanded upon twice and is in place through August 2, 1998. In addition, the Board is holding two days of hearings on the rail service emergency in the beginning of next month. We must applaud Linda Morgan, the Chairman of the Board, on her leadership and the men and women of the Board on their hard work and dedication and as we do so we must be mindful that more, much more, will be expected of them. Two additional rail mergers have been announced, both of critical importance to the nation. I have every confidence in Chairman Morgan and the STB to meet and surmount these latest challenges. This bill represents my commitment to seeing that the Board is reauthorized for a multi-year span and is given the resources it needs to continue its vital work. Absent the Board, neither shippers nor rail carriers would have an effective forum to adjudicate disputes and ensure a first rate nationwide rail transportation system.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am happy to cosponsor, along with Senators McCain, Inouye, Hutchison, Lott, and Ford, this bill to reauthorize appropriations for the Surface Transportation Board (Board). The Board is the independent agency which oversees the nation's rail transportation industry. The Board also has some authority over the interstate bus system, pipeline system, and rail labor-management disputes. It should be said that the Congress gave this small agency, with less than 150 people, the job that had been done by the old Interstate Commerce Commission with, at its peak, 1600 people. We demanded that the Board do more with less and we demanded that it be evenhanded, fair-minded, and tackle some very tough, contentious issues. I am happy to report that the Board has done all of that and more. Since its inception, the Board has had a pending caseload of between 400 and 500 adjudications related to all of its functions. The number of rail cases pending at the Board remains relatively constant because, even as cases are resolved, new cases are filed. Even with its relatively meager resources the Board has met every rulemaking deadline set by Congress in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. It has resolved close to 200 motor carrier undercharge cases. It has set and met deadlines and established simplified procedures for handling pending cases. It has also dealt with the important and difficult issue of rail carriers providing rates to shippers in the so- called ``bottleneck'' cases. While this issue is now before the courts, it is the Board that has tried to steer a course allowing the rail carriers to earn a decent return on their investment while providing shippers with needed transportation at reasonable rates. In the area of rail regulation, the Board has worked on several important rail restructuring cases, including several complex line construction cases, the Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger, and the pending Conrail acquisition case (in which approximately 80 decisions have already been issued). It has tackled the rail service emergency in the West in many ways, including its issuance of an emergency service order on October 31, 1997, which has been extended and expanded upon twice and is in place through August 2, 1998. In addition, the Board is holding two days of hearings on the rail service emergency in the beginning of next month. We must applaud Linda Morgan, the Chairman of the Board, on her leadership and the men and women of the Board on their hard work and dedication and as we do so we must be mindful that more, much more, will be expected of them. Two additional rail mergers have been announced, both of critical importance to the nation. I have every confidence in Chairman Morgan and the STB to meet and surmount these latest challenges. This bill represents my commitment to seeing that the Board is reauthorized for a multi-year span and is given the resources it needs to continue its vital work. Absent the Board, neither shippers nor rail carriers would have an effective forum to adjudicate disputes and ensure a first rate nationwide rail transportation system.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we come again to the highway bill and the question of fairness. Seven years ago I voted against passage of the highway bill, called ``ISTEA,'' because it did not provide a fair share of funding to South Carolina. We were told we had a so-called ``90% minimum allocation,'' but hindsight now shows that we received only 71 cents on the dollar. I think we are on a better track today. The latest chart shows South Carolina getting 90 cents on the dollar for apportioned funds. I still do not believe that amount is fair, but it represents progress and I will keep working to improve on this amount. Also, ``donor'' states like South Carolina were told last week that the bill would provide a floor of 91 cents on the dollar, and we clearly do not have that guarantee in the bill yet. However, I appreciate the difficult job the managers of the bill have in balancing the many needs under this bill, and have tried to help them pass a fair bill in accords with the needs of my state. Particularly, I have strongly supported putting increased gas tax funds into the Highway Trust Fund, and spending those funds on highways rather than non-transportation purposes. This is the right thing to do, it is good budget policy, and of course, it helps the managers of this bill provide an increased share of funding for ``donor'' states like South Carolina. Again, I remain concerned that, while there was an indication last week that donor states would receive 91 cents back for each dollar contributed, donor states have not in reality been given this amount. And I stand by my support for legislation giving donor states a guarantee of 95 cents or higher. But I am pleased to see some progress on the issue of fairness and hope we can continue to work together to improve the bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, I introduce duty suspension legislation designed to permit the import of certain textile weaving machinery into the United States duty free. The equipment to be imported is not manufactured in the United States and therefore its importation will not displace domestic sourcing. Moreover, because the product at issue is manufacturing equipment, it will assist in the creation of additional jobs in the textile industry. I believe that this is the most appropriate use of such legislation. I am therefore hopeful that this new capacity can be used to supply both domestic and foreign needs and will increase employment in the textile industry.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, I introduce duty suspension legislation designed to permit the import of certain textile weaving machinery into the United States duty free. The equipment to be imported is not manufactured in the United States and therefore its importation will not displace domestic sourcing. Moreover, because the product at issue is manufacturing equipment, it will assist in the creation of additional jobs in the textile industry. I believe that this is the most appropriate use of such legislation. I am therefore hopeful that this new capacity can be used to supply both domestic and foreign needs and will increase employment in the textile industry.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer along with Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator McCain, the Commerce Committee amendment to S. 1173, the International Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Mr. President, the Commerce Committee has worked together, in a true showing of bipartisanship, to craft this amendment. In this amendment the Committee has developed proposals to improve travel safety on our nation's roads and waterways, promote the safe shipment of hazardous material, advance pipeline transportation safety, and ensure that our nation's commercial motor vehicle fleet is well maintained and operated. This is not to say that we have left all of our policy disagreements behind us with this amendment. There are several that remain to be resolved and we are still attempting to resolve those issues. But on balance we have an amendment with which we all may be proud. I will take a few minutes to outline the amendment's more important provisions. The amendment reauthorizes various grant programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), designed to improve road safety. The amendment reauthorizes grants to develop countermeasures to alcohol-impaired driving. Two new grant programs are also created. One encourages States to provide for the primary enforcement of seat belt laws. The second encourages states to improve the quality of their highway safety data. The amendment reauthorizes funding and strengthens the programs to ensure the safe transportation of hazardous materials. It expands hazardous materials training access by allowing states to use a portion of these grants to assist in training small businesses in complying with regulations. We also strengthen enforcement by giving the Secretary of Transportation the authority to issue emergency orders when it is determined that an unsafe condition poses an imminent hazard. The amendment also reauthorizes the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) which provides funding to the states for commercial driver and vehicle safety inspections, traffic enforcement, compliance reviews, and safety data collection. Moreover, the amendment removes many of the program's prescriptive requirements in favor of a performance based approach. The Secretary will have the authority to order unsafe carriers to cease operations. We also authorize additional funds to ensure the timely and accurate exchange of important carrier and driver safety records. Perhaps most importantly, we provide the Secretary with the authority to establish pilot programs and grant waivers of regulations to motor carriers. If carriers can show that an alternative approach to regulation will aid safety and be less burdensome, the Secretary can authorize such an alternative. Regulation can be tailored to specific circumstances rather than ``one-size-fits-all'' regulation. In the area of rail and mass transportation safety as requested by the Administration we provide for criminal sanctions in cases of violent attacks against railroads, their employees, and passengers. The amendment also extends the basic Wallop-Breaux Aquatic Resources Trust Fund for boating safety and reauthorizes the Clean Vessel Act, allocating $10 million annually for state marine sanitation device projects and $10 million annually for state boating infrastructure projects. As I noted earlier, not all of our policy disagreements have been solved. I continue to be concerned about three provisions which seem to undermine our efforts to achieve safer highways. These provisions would allow exemptions from federal regulations for utility drivers and those engaged in agri-business. Specifically, the federal hours of service act which governs how long a driver may drive in any one day, the hazardous materials transportation requirement that ensures that emergency response teams have the necessary information to combat a hazard material incident, and the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) requirements are waived under these provisions. I think these exemption provisions ``go the wrong way'' on safety. Indeed, the provisions are also unnecessary given the other provision that allows DOT to develop safe pilot programs and waivers for individuals, companies, and industries. I would like these provisions modified and I remain hopeful that we can work out these issues. With that caveat I believe that the Commerce Committee has under the leadership of Senator McCain, given us an ISTEA amendment that we all can support and I commend it to the Senate. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.