Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I concur with the chairman of the Commerce Committee. The provisions on aquaculture and weather activities in the Senate- passed version of S. 1150 substantially affect important issues within the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction and we need to examine and formally consider the provisions in our committee before we can agree to their enactment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I also extend my thanks to Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin for addressing our concerns.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I address President Clinton's admonition: ``save Social Security first.'' I consider the President's plea essential; in fact, it is the most important business confronting this body. Saving Social Security is not a new crusade for me; for over two decades, I have dedicated myself to this cause. As a former Chairman and the senior member of the Budget Committee, I have worked to ensure that we are honest and responsible in our treatment of the trust funds and that Social Security will be viable for decades to come. The debate over Social Security is not a new one. I recall when we formed the Greenspan Commission in 1983 for just this purpose: to save Social Security. That commission recommended the higher Social Security payroll tax that took effect in the mid-1980s. This tax was intended to produce a large surplus in the Social Security trust fund, to be used to support the retirement of the Baby Boom generation in the next century. But because the surplus has been used to pay for general operations of the federal government, there is in fact an enormous deficit in Social Security. This government owes a great deal of money to current workers; under the current system, we will be unable to pay them their benefits when they retire. That is why it is crucial we reform Social Security. Consider President Clinton's Social Security proposal--as elaborated in his State of the Union address--in its entirety: ``Tonight I propose we reserve 100 percent of the surplus. That's every penny of any surplus.'' The President is right. Reserving any surplus is essential to ensuring that Social Security remains not only solvent, but fully capable of paying benefits to future retirees. If we are serious about saving Social Security--the most effective federal program since its enactment in 1935--we must protect the Social Security trust fund. To help achieve this, I am dropping in a resolution that would express the sense of the Senate that Congress must not use any Social Security surplus to increase spending or cut taxes. I will offer this as an amendment to the first appropriate piece of legislation. The first way to save Social Security is to stop spending the trust funds. One way to do this is to force an up-or-down vote on my resolution. Force Congress to promise not to use surpluses for irresponsible spending or tax cuts. If we can do this, we will have eliminated the immediate obstacle to saving Social Security. This sense of the Senate is the first step towards saving Social Security. The next step is to address the program's long-term solvency. But before we can remedy Social Security's fundamental problems and save it for future retirees, we must restore truth in budgeting and put the ``trust'' back in trust funds. That is why I have introduced this resolution, and that is why I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, South Carolina lost one of its greatest citizens when former Governor, former U.S. Senator, and Federal Judge Donald Russell passed away Sunday night. I am both greatly saddened and honored to pay tribute today to the exemplary life of this extraordinary man. In addition to his many years of public service as Governor, U.S. Senator, and Federal Judge, Donald Russell also served as president of the University of South Carolina from 1952 to 1957. During the Second World War, he served in the War Department and as a special assistant to James F. Byrnes until 1943. In 1943, he entered upon active duty in the U.S. Army; he was decommissioned as a major in 1944 after serving with Supreme Allied Headquarters. He was present at Yalta with James Byrnes and President Roosevelt. Following the War, he served for two years as Assistant Secretary of State for Administration. Some in this Chamber remember Donald Russell as an esteemed colleague who served with great distinction in the United States Senate in 1965 and 1966. During his time in the Senate, Senator Russell was known as a serious, conscientious, and particularly intelligent lawmaker, dedicated to his country and to his state. Both South Carolina and the United States benefitted from Senator Russell's wise and vigorous leadership. Before entering the Senate, Donald Russell served as Governor of South Carolina. His governorship was one of the most progressive, most active, and most important in my state's history. For example, he strongly supported and helped fund the statewide system of technical colleges that has been essential to South Carolina's dramatic economic growth for the past two decades. But the hallmark of Donald Russell's governorship was his commitment to racial reconciliation and fair treatment for all in South Carolina. Mr. President, the best way to illustrate Donald Russell's caring, generous, and just nature and his commitment to equitable and progressive policies is to relate a vignette. On his inauguration as Governor, Donald threw a barbecue for the people of South Carolina--all the people. This was unprecedented: never before in South Carolina had a governor thrown a party and invited all the state's people--white and black--to attend. For the first time, the Governor shook many black as well as white hands in his receiving line. Donald's act was as bold as it was wonderful, and it set the tone for his governorship, during which he worked to encourage the citizens of South Carolina to accept the end of the pernicious system of segregation. After leaving the Senate, Donald was appointed by President Lyndon Johnson to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. In 1971, Judge Russell was appointed by President Richard Nixon to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. For over thirty years, Judge Russell served with great distinction and earned a reputation as one of America's most respected jurists. His intellect remained keen to the end and he never accepted senior status. His years on the bench set a standard for judicial integrity, wisdom, and fairmindedness that will endure for many years. In fact, it was as a jurist that Donald Russell found his true calling. I doubt that I ever have seen or will see another jurist to surpass him. For more than fifty years, Mr. President, I have known Donald Russell to be one of the most dedicated public servants in South Carolina's rich history. His dedication to improving the lives of everyday citizens has inspired me throughout my own career in public service. I am proud to have been his friend and colleague, and I send his family my sincere condolences.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am proud to co-sponsor a bill which will be an essential component of the war on crime. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act, which was introduced today, will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by helping state and local law enforcement agencies provide their officers with body armor. Providing body armor to more law enforcement agencies will greatly reduce injuries and fatalities among officers. The FBI estimates that more than 40 percent of the 1,182 officers killed in the line of duty by a firearm since 1980 would have lived had they worn bullet-resistant vests. In fact, the FBI considers the risk of death to officers not wearing armor to be 14 times greater than that for officers wearing body armor. Mr. President, today 150,000 law officers in the United States do not have access to this essential equipment. This is unacceptable. These brave men and women risk their lives every day to enforce the law and protect and serve the public. The least we can do is afford them the greatest degree of protection possible as they fight crime in our communities. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 1998 will provide state and local law enforcement officers with the critical equipment they need to protect their officers in the line of duty. This bipartisan bill will create a $25 million grant program in the Department of Justice to provide matching funds to state and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. I would like to underscore the importance of the word ``Partnership'' in this bill. This grant program will continue the effective federal-state-local partnerships that have proved so successful in the war on crime. One of the greatest features of this bill, Mr. President, is that it prefers law enforcement agencies that cannot now provide body armor for their officers. This is especially helpful to small and rural jurisdictions. In fact, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act requires the Justice Department to provide at least 50% of the grant program's funds to small jurisdictions comprising fewer than 100,000 people. This provision is especially important in states like South Carolina, where the vast majority of jurisdictions fit this description. The Fraternal Order of Police, National Sheriff's Association, International Union of Police Associations, and Police Executive Research Forum all endorse this bill, Mr. President. These groups understand better than anyone the importance of this legislation. They know from firsthand experience that body armor often can mean the difference between life and death for an officer. If we are serious about fighting crime, we must ensure the safety of our law enforcement officers. The best way to do this is to provide state and local law enforcement agencies with the funds to purchase new equipment such as body armor for their officers. Though we cannot protect every law officer from danger, we can and must ensure that they have the best equipment available to protect themselves while in the line of duty. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act will do all these things. I am proud to co-sponsor it, and I encourage all my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Let us do our part in the war on crime.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am proud to co-sponsor a bill which will be an essential component of the war on crime. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act, which was introduced today, will save the lives of law enforcement officers across the country by helping state and local law enforcement agencies provide their officers with body armor. Providing body armor to more law enforcement agencies will greatly reduce injuries and fatalities among officers. The FBI estimates that more than 40 percent of the 1,182 officers killed in the line of duty by a firearm since 1980 would have lived had they worn bullet-resistant vests. In fact, the FBI considers the risk of death to officers not wearing armor to be 14 times greater than that for officers wearing body armor. Mr. President, today 150,000 law officers in the United States do not have access to this essential equipment. This is unacceptable. These brave men and women risk their lives every day to enforce the law and protect and serve the public. The least we can do is afford them the greatest degree of protection possible as they fight crime in our communities. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 1998 will provide state and local law enforcement officers with the critical equipment they need to protect their officers in the line of duty. This bipartisan bill will create a $25 million grant program in the Department of Justice to provide matching funds to state and local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. I would like to underscore the importance of the word ``Partnership'' in this bill. This grant program will continue the effective federal-state-local partnerships that have proved so successful in the war on crime. One of the greatest features of this bill, Mr. President, is that it prefers law enforcement agencies that cannot now provide body armor for their officers. This is especially helpful to small and rural jurisdictions. In fact, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act requires the Justice Department to provide at least 50% of the grant program's funds to small jurisdictions comprising fewer than 100,000 people. This provision is especially important in states like South Carolina, where the vast majority of jurisdictions fit this description. The Fraternal Order of Police, National Sheriff's Association, International Union of Police Associations, and Police Executive Research Forum all endorse this bill, Mr. President. These groups understand better than anyone the importance of this legislation. They know from firsthand experience that body armor often can mean the difference between life and death for an officer. If we are serious about fighting crime, we must ensure the safety of our law enforcement officers. The best way to do this is to provide state and local law enforcement agencies with the funds to purchase new equipment such as body armor for their officers. Though we cannot protect every law officer from danger, we can and must ensure that they have the best equipment available to protect themselves while in the line of duty. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act will do all these things. I am proud to co-sponsor it, and I encourage all my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Let us do our part in the war on crime.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is right on target with respect to giving the President credit. There is no question, we increased taxes, cut spending, and cut the number of Federal employees. And in increasing the taxes, I will never forget the colleague from Texas, when he stated on the floor--regarding increasing taxes on Social Security--that they were going to be hunting us Democrats down in the streets and shooting us like dogs. I will never forget that. They not only projected a recession and a depression, but that Social Security tax increase, which I don't see anybody putting into a bill or talking about today-- but at that particular time, taking on that hard choice, as they talked about, without a single Republican vote, was very, very difficult. But we faced the fire, and to President Clinton's credit, now we have the economy headed in the right direction. My comments on the unified budget and deficit is to make sure we don't go in the other direction.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, last week in remarks on the floor I referred to the Congressional Budget Office's report, ``Economic and Budget Outlook for the Fiscal Years 1999 to 2008.'' And at that particular time, Madam President, I pointed out that even the Congressional Budget Office had projected deficits not only of $188 billion for the present year and $170 billion for 1998, but of $200 billion for 1999, the year in which everyone in this town has been screaming we will reap a budgetary surplus. Now we have the President's budget. Madam President, this morning we not only received that budget, we saw in this country's newspapers of record such headlines as ``On Budget Eve, Congress Feels Surplus Fever.'' This particular article reports that the distinguished Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, stated, ``We are on the edge, if we will have discipline, of a generation of surpluses.'' So we have the President talking about balanced budgets as far as the eye can see in his State of the Union Message. And we now have the distinguished Speaker talking about surpluses as far as the eye can see for the next generation. Would that it were so. Would that we did not have any increase in the national debt. Would that we had no increase in the deficit. Would that we had no increase in the interest costs of the carrying charges on our national debt, which are now projected, Madam President, to be $1 billion a day, or $365 billion a year. That is one thing that everyone can agree on: that the interest on the federal debt is going up, up, and away. Let me emphasize the matter of the debt before I home in on the matter of Social Security and the spending of surpluses. In 1981, we had a national debt of $995.5 billion. We had not reached a trillion- dollar debt. For the first 200 years of our history, including the costs of all the wars our nation fought during that time--the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish- American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam--we did not reach a trillion-dollar debt. But in the last 16 years, we have reached now a $5.5 trillion debt, with interest costs of a billion dollars a day. Interest on the debt used to stand at a mere $95 billion; it now stands at $365 billion. So we are spending $270 billion more on interest alone than when we supposedly were going to balance the budget back in 1981. I remember when our distinguished President Ronald Reagan ran on balancing the budget and was elected in 1980. He came into office in 1981 and said, ``Whoops. This is way worse than I ever expected. Instead of balancing the budget in a year, it's going to take me 3 years.'' Even after passage of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Bill, we ran into the highest deficits we ever had heard of. The deficits and debt went up, up, and away under Reaganomics. Of course, the whole idea of Reaganomics, which George Bush called voodoo economics, was that cutting tax revenues some 25 percent would spur people to spend more, thus leading to increased government revenues from sales taxes and income taxes. This in turn, proponents of so- called Reaganomics said, would enable us to grow out of the federal deficit and national debt. In contrast, of course, we have grown into them. As a result, we now spend a billion dollars a day on interest to service the federal debt. The first thing at 8 o'clock every morning that the Government does is go down to the bank and borrow a billion dollars--every Sunday morning, Christmas morning, every holiday, every day in the year. It borrows and spends this billion dollars to pay the carrying charges on the debt. This money doesn't go for anything constructive: no highways, no foreign aid, no defense money. It's just waste added to the debt. This is the dilemma we find ourselves in. This is really the bottom line. But it has never been emphasized in this body. And momentarily, seeing that I had an opportunity to emphasize this on the floor of the Senate, I said to myself: ``Now's my chance to sober everyone up, because we are spending more and getting less.'' And everybody wonders why they are not getting adequate Government services. The reason we are not is because we are spending $270 billion more on interest than we were spending in 1981. We are spending more for absolutely nothing-- a total of $365 billion for nothing. And now we have the President's budget. And as is the usual custom, the Administration says one thing and does another. I will never forget Attorney General John Mitchell's admonition, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' That could be the mantra of Congress and the White House today: ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' Of course, if you look in the very first part of the President's budget, you can see projected on page 10 of the budget for next year, 1999, a $9.5 billion surplus. Isn't that grand? Isn't that wonderful? There it is: a $9.5 billion surplus on page 10. But, Madam President, let us, if you please, go all the way back to page 367 of the President's budget. You have to go search through the whole budget. I don't know that anybody has done this, but I have learned how to search out the truth in these budgets. On page 367 you will find a chart similar to the one by the CBO titled ``Projections of the Federal Debt by Fiscal Year.'' You will find the Federal Government's financing and debt. And when you look in the very, very small print, you will see it under the title ``Total Gross Federal Debt.'' Of course, they have highlighted other elements of the budget, such as ``Debt Outstanding End of the Year.'' They have highlighted in bold, black letters the ``Debt Subject to Statutory Limitations End of the Year.'' But it is in very small letters that they provide the ``Total Gross Federal Debt.'' But if you squint your eyes, you can see that the debt goes from $5,543.6 billion in 1998 to $5,738.1 billion in 1999. So the President, in his own budget--although you have to be a detective to find this--projects a deficit that, if adopted, ipso facto will be $194.5 billion. This is the situation that confronts us. But today one has to read in all the papers and magazines about this ``surplus fever and tax cuts''; and you have to listen to the debate on the floor. ``No, I think we ought to spend more for this program or that program. No, I think we ought to have tax cuts. That's what we ought to do with the surplus.'' Madam President, the only way that anyone can possibly project any kind of balanced budget or surplus for next year of $9.5 billion is to use the trust funds--not just those of Social Security, because there is another $113 billion of Social Security being used--but the $90 billion in other trust funds. The easiest way to figure whether or not you have a deficit is to see whether or not you make more money than you spend each year. This works for families; it works for everyone. We must look at whether the Federal Government receives more money than it spends. Of course, if it spends more than it receives, it has a deficit. And that is why you must look at the bottom line of the national debt, where you will see that we actually spend $194.5 billion more than we take in. But the greatest gimmick and the actual fraud, Madam President, is the so-called unified budget. Supporters of this sham argue that President Lyndon Johnson and the Congress balanced the budget this way in 1968-1969. This is absolutely false; absolutely false. President Lyndon Baines Johnson did not use any surpluses in order to balance the budget. Madam President, I have a chart that shows the state of the national debt under President Johnson. In fact, it provides the debt under all the Presidents, beginning with President Truman in 1945 and continuing to February, 1998. I have here the United States' total budget. I have the borrowed trust funds. This is in the chart and I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. With this chart, we can see the borrowed trust funds and the unified deficit including the trust funds. But then we see the actual deficit without the trust funds, the real deficit, with a column for each President: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton. This table shows the national debt under each President, as well as the annual increases in spending on interest costs on that debt. If we look at 1968-1969, we find that listed actual trust funds totalled $300 million. Since the unified deficit with trust funds was $3.2 billion, the actual deficit without Social Security trust funds was $2.9 billion. So trust funds were not used to balance the budget. This is a fallacious argument. In fact, let me clear that up. In those days the distinguished Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee was Congressman Wilbur Mills of Arkansas. He was the authority on the federal budget and our nation's fiscal state. If you ever wanted to find out about a tax or revenue, if you ever wanted to talk about fiscal policy or otherwise, you went to see Wilbur. He was a brilliant individual. In 1972, he entered the Presidential race. Of course, before he got into that Presidential race--I cannot remember the exact year he announced--he came out and said we had so much money in Social Security that we should give recipients a cost-of-living-increase of 10 percent. And President Nixon said, ``Well, if Wilbur Mills will give you 10 percent, I will give you 15 percent,'' and we started spending away the Social Security moneys. We never did have a difficulty with Social Security until those shenanigans commenced. By 1980, we determined that Social Security would be running into the red and we created the Greenspan Commission, under the distinguished head of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. The Greenspan Commission came out with a report adopted in 1983, which said that not only are we going to balance Social Security's budget, we are going to have an inordinately high tax, a graduated tax, to make sure that we build up a surplus to take care of the baby boomers. That was the intent of building up the surplus. They knew they were going to have extra money. It wasn't a mystery because it was an inordinately high tax. They built up this surplus intentionally. And Section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report states that in order to maintain the surplus for the baby boomers through the year 2056, we must take Social Security out of the unified budget. Now, that is what Greenspan recommended. And this Senator worked as a member of the Budget Committee to get that done. Finally, in 1990, we reported it out from the Budget Committee by a vote of 20-1 that we do just that, take Social Security off budget. And 98 Senators voted for that on the floor of the Senate. And President George Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed section 13-301 into the law. Section 13-301 of the budget law says that the Congress and the President you shall not submit a budget using Social Security trust funds. Of course, that was violated and it is being violated now in this particular budget. Right here, it is violated. There is no question it is being violated because that is what all the newspapers are reporting on--they are talking about page 10, not page 367. Here is what has been occurring. Let's go right to Social Security. Last year we owed the trust funds $631 billion; by the end of September 1998, the Congressional Budget Office estimates we will owe $732 billion; and under the President's budget plan, by the year 2002 we will owe $1.236 trillion. Everybody is saying, wait a minute, we have to do something because in 10 years Social Security is going to be broke. Come on, it is broke now. If we look to the end of this year, we will owe Social Security $732 billion. Now, who in the year 2002 is going to recommend a tax increase of $1.236 trillion to redeem the Social Security IOUs? He will not be able to stand on the floor and get one vote. They will run him out. That will not happen. That is why this particular Senator has been insistent from the very beginning that we look at all the trust funds and the condition of the Government--Medicare, military retirement, civilian retirement, unemployment, highway, airports--to evaluate the federal deficit and debt. For example, at the end of this fiscal year we will owe highway trust funds $23 billion. Now, why are the highways crumbling and the bridges falling? Because the vehicle-automobile, gasoline taxes are not being used on the roads and the bridges. They are being used for food stamps, for foreign aid, or for any and every other purpose except for highways. Why don't we have updated radar at all the major airports in the U.S. for passengers' safety? After all, who pays airline tax? But the airline tax is not going to the airports. It is going for any and every other purpose but the airports. We owe them $10 billion. And I don't want to get the military retirees or the Civil Service retirees upset, but as of the end of September we will owe $133 billion to make payments to them. We will owe $460 billion, almost half a trillion dollars, to civilian retirees. This charade, this fraud, has got to stop. It is outrageous that the President comes to the American people and says in one breath, ``Tonight I propose that we reserve 100 percent of the surplus--that is every penny of any surplus--until we have taken all the measures necessary to strengthen the Social Security system for the 21st century.'' And then, after giving that message last week, today he comes and loots the Social Security trust fund to the tune of $113 billion in order to report a $9.5 billion surplus. Of course, all the editorial writers and news columnists are writing that we will enjoy balanced budgets as far as the eye can see. We will have surpluses as far as the eye can see, they say, when the actual deficit under the President's budget is $194.5 billion. Look on page 367 of his report and you will see nothing but deficits for as far as the eye can see-- namely, the debt increasing; namely, a billion dollars a day being paid now with the lowest of interest rates that we have had in our history. That amount is going to soar when interest rates rise because spending for interest goes up, up and away under the President's budget proposal. We really are in a downward spiral of financial responsibility here in the National Government. Now, I delight in the President's budget with respect to child care. I delight in the provisions in there for 100,000 more Border Patrol agents; 100,000 more cops; higher pay for teachers; and smaller classroom size. But we are going to have to pass a tobacco tax settlement or some other measure to get extra moneys for these particular programs. This Senator is willing to vote to pay for those programs. I am trying to put Government on a pay-as-you-go basis. I know about fiscal responsibility. I achieved the first AAA credit rating for the State of South Carolina, the first Southern State to receive this bond rating. In 1959 I worked like the dickens to get it done. I voted for that federal balanced budget in 1968-69. The entire budget, with the costs of the war in Vietnam and the Great Society, was only $178 billion. Today, we suffer from a $1.7 trillion budget. But we balanced it then. I was a cosponsor of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in order to try to cut the deficits, but of course the quickest way to anonymity in public office is to cosponsor a bill with Senator Gramm or Senator Rudman. I never heard since from it but that is how it works around here. But we did get the majority of Democratic votes, 14 votes up and down against the opposition of the majority leader, the chairman of the Budget Committee and the Democratic whip. They all opposed Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, but we had a majority of Democrats on this side of the aisle vote for Gramm- Rudman-Hollings. I even suggested at one time a value-added tax to get on top of this sea of red ink, allocated to the deficit and the debt so we wouldn't get into this waste of $1 billion a day. I am still working now, not just on the amount of the deficit and debt but for the principle of truth, truth in budgeting. How do you get the national media, the national press, who are co-conspirators in this charade, to report the truth. They are talking about conspiracy around this town with regard to special prosecutors, when in reality the conspiracy is right here, in the so-called unified budget. The budget the White House submitted today results without question in a $194.5 billion deficit if adopted as it is now submitted. It is time everyone realize this. It is time we practice truth in governing and reporting. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, section 21 says take Social Security off the unified budget and record it as a separate trust fund. I also ask unanimous consent that section 13301 of the Budget Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the thrust of President Clinton's State of the Union address was ``save Social Security first.'' The quickest way to save Social Security is to stop looting Social Security. Over the years, we have looted the Social Security trust fund with wild abandon; we owe it to the tune of some $631 billion right this minute. It should be a $631 billion surplus. But actually, since Congress has expended it on foreign aid, defense, food stamps, and other programs in order to appear fiscally responsible, there is a deficit in Social Security. I see now from the Congressional Budget Office, and I take it from the President's budget to be submitted next Monday, that the CBO, along with the Congress and the President, is prepared, again, to go forward with this nonsense of a unified budget. The unified budget is a fraud. It allows Congress to spend money but get credit for not spending money. Only here do fiscally irresponsible people get a good government award. Let's think back a minute on President Lyndon Johnson, because the consensus is, ``President Johnson changed government accounting procedures and created the concept and introduced the use of a unified budget, and that is how he got a surplus.'' This is false; false. I was present during that time; I was there with George Mahon, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We asked if we could cut $5 billion to achieve a total budget of $178 billion for the Great Society and the Vietnam War. Can you imagine that? We funded the Great Society and the War with just $178 billion. And where are we today? Today the budget is $1.7 trillion. During LBJ's presidency, we balanced the budget with a surplus of $3.2 billion. The Social Security trust fund then only amounted to $300 million. So President Johnson balanced the budget without trust funds and without a unified deficit. What really happened was that Wilbur Mills of the Ways and Means Committee, who was running for President up in New Hampshire, said to the American people: ``Oh, we have so much money in that Social Security fund; I will give you a 10-percent COLA.'' Then along came President Nixon and he said, ``If he will give you 10, I will give you 15 percent.'' We started draining the fund during the seventies. By 1980-1981--when I was chairman of the Budget Committee--we could see we were going to have a horrendous deficit in Social Security. So we formed the Greenspan commission, and we issued a report that recommended not only to impose a higher tax for Social Security to balance the Social Security budget, but more particularly to build up a trust fund for the Presiding Officer. Now, old men like Senator Thurmond and I are going to get our Social Security money. But I don't know that younger Americans are going to get theirs. The fact of the matter is that according to the Greenspan Commission, baby boomers were to be cared for with Social Security through the year 2056. To show that, I ask unanimous consent that section 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. This is a short, one-paragraph bill. It says that Congress cannot use any of these surpluses and trust funds for any tax cut or any spending increase where we have caps. Maybe, Mr. President, they will get the money from the tobacco settlement. I don't know where they will get the money from. You are looking at a Senator who voted against spending increases and against tax cuts last year in order to try to bring about fiscal responsibility. We enjoy a good economy, Mr. President. And we want to stay the course. But let us practice truth in budgeting, and let us mean it. I have provided all the facts and figures here. There is a chart that everybody in America ought to see: the gross Federal debt. In the past year, 1997, we ran a deficit not of $22 billion but of $188 billion. The Congressional Budget Office projects an actual deficit of $170 billion. And, Mr. President, in 1999, the deficit will increase from $170 billion to $200 billion. Why? Because rather than heading in the right direction, Congress and the President last year increased spending and cut out revenues. Under current policy, the deficit will continue to soar, right on up and away to $205 billion by the year 2000. So everybody ought to understand that Congress and the White House can make all the wonderful talks they like; and everyone can say, ``Well, the President wants to use those funds for spending, and I want to use it for tax cuts.'' That suits me, whatever you all want to do, but let us have truth in budgeting and let us not use any of the trust funds as an offset. The bills I introduce today will achieve both of these goals; they will ensure an honest budget and protect Social Security and other trust funds. I thank the distinguished Chair and yield the floor. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Table 2, instead of showing that trust funds are not used, shows that Congress uses over $165 billion of trust funds--$165 billion. That is $101 billion from Social Security and $64 billion from the military retirement trust fund, Civil Service retirement trust fund, highway trust fund, airport trust fund; and the surplus crowd is trying to report just a $5 billion deficit. Come on. You have to go all the way back, Mr. President, to page 42 of the CBO's report. If you look at page 42, you can find the real deficit, because down there they have the gross Federal debt. Of course, they don't put it in red. I wish I had a chart here so everybody could see it. This is not how a family budgets. Families ask themselves if they spend more than they take in? They don't employ this unified budget nonsense, or economic flows or the Wholesale Price Index or the Consumer Price Index or any of this economic gobbledygook. If you spend more than you take in, you have a deficit, and that adds to your debt. Page 42 of the Congressional Budget Office's report shows that we go from a $5.5 trillion debt in 10 years to over $7.5 trillion. In the next 5 years, according to this chart, we are going to spend $957 billion more than we take in--under this so-called balanced budget plan. Yet everyone is running around, patting each other on the back and complimenting each other on fiscal responsibility and discipline. ``A balanced budget as far as the eye can see,'' says the President. Dr. June O'Neill said the same thing yesterday before the Budget Committee. Mr. President, they are talking out of the whole cloth. Their claims are false. They continue to use these trust funds to obscure the debt and deceive the people. We already have used Social Security, military, civilian, unemployment, highway, airport, railroad of $1.5 trillion we owe now, and under the 1998 projected current policy, CBO reports it will be $1.652 trillion. So we are using all of these trust funds, and President Clinton said all trust funds. I read from that particular report where he said any trust funds. I want to make sure everybody gets that because I am not being technical at all. I quote President Clinton: ``Tonight I propose we reserve 100 percent of the surplus. That's every penny of any surplus.'' Mr. President, I have two bills that do just that. Boy, are we going to put them to the task of truth in budgeting. I ask unanimous consent that these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I got that reported out of the Budget Committee, and President George Walker Herbert Bush signed it into law on November 5, 1990: ``Thou shalt not use the Social Security trust fund.'' But, Mr. President, Congress today totally ignores it. Here is the economic budget outlook for fiscal year 1999. I ask unanimous consent that this table 2 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business until the appointed hour of 12:45.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the exemplary career and extraordinary life of one of South Carolina's most beloved citizens: Dr. Walter Gamewell ``Curly" Watson. Dr. Watson, who will turn 88 in February, was born in Trenton, South Carolina, on the same farm he owns today. He graduated from The Citadel college during the height of the Great Depression. Although he earned the highest grade point average in his class, he was--like so many of us during that time--unable to find work. So in order to earn money for medical school, he taught math and coached football at high schools in Edgefield, South Carolina, and Bainbridge, Georgia, for the following seven years. Finally, in 1939, he was able to enter medical school; and in 1943, he graduated from the Medical College of Georgia. After interning and completing his residency at University Hospital in Augusta, Dr. Watson served two years as an Army physician in Korea and the Philippines. Before shipping out, Dr. Watson married Audrey Bazemore, a University Hospital nurse whom he met during his residency. Today, the two remain devoted to one another. In fact, it was only at Audrey's insistence that Walter agreed to allow University Hospital to bear his name. He is notorious for avoiding attention and eschewing praise. Indeed, Dr. Watson's life and career are marked by his humility. Dr. Watson began his private practice 50 years ago, joining the practice established by Senator Strom Thurmond's late brother J. W. While delivering over 50 babies a month for most of the past 50 years, Watson also found time to serve his hospital, church, and community. He led Grace Methodist Church's efforts to build two new sanctuaries, as well as its relief mission for the victims of Hurricane Hugo. And for over 40 years, Watson has served as the team physician for North Augusta High School. Walter Watson also has received numerous accolades from his peers in the medical profession. Among other honors, he was named Professor Emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology at the Medical College of Georgia. And the hundreds of letters he has received over the years from friends, colleagues, and patients are testament to his unsurpassed bedside manner and deft human touch. Perhaps greatest among Watson's accomplishments is his success as a family man. He raised five children, all of whom have grown up to be well-respected members of their community. All four of his daughters became nurses; they received their first training from their father. Today, Mr. President, the University of Georgia Hospital names its Women's Center in Dr. Watson's honor. I can think of no more fitting tribute to this man who has given much to his community while asking nothing in return. At a time when many speak of the need to foster volunteerism, Dr. Walter Watson's life serves as a lesson in humility, faith, commitment, professionalism, and service. Beloved teacher, healer, father, and husband: Walter Watson is an inspiration to us all.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I'm pleased to join our Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Gregg, in presenting this Fiscal Year 1998 Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Conference Agreement to the Senate. This is a good agreement that has been worked out in a bipartisan fashion. It has taken us over six weeks of negotiations with the House to reach consensus. I should note that the Senate passed our version of the bill back on July 29 by a vote of 99 to 0. In the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill we fund programs ranging from the FBI to our State Department embassies overseas, to fisheries research and the National Weather Service, to the Supreme Court and the Federal Communications Commission. It requires a balancing act of the priorities of the Nation, of the sometimes shared and, as we have seen in this conference, more often competing interests of our colleagues here in the Congress, and the priorities of the Administration--all within the confines of our 302(b) allocation. I think Chairman Gregg and his able staff--Jim Morhard, Kevin Linskey, Paddy Link, Dana Quam, Carl Truscott and Vasiliki Alexopoulos--have done an outstanding job in balancing these interests in their work with our counterparts on the House Appropriations Committee. In the face of a very involved House Republican leadership and an administration that tried to give away the store in an effort to buy fast-track votes, we have held our own--and I fully support the agreement that we are considering today. In total, this bill provides $31.777 billion in budget authority, $158 million more than the Senate-passed bill. We have $1.881 billion more than was appropriated last year, and the bill is $275 million below the President's request. Once again, the CJS appropriations bill makes it clear that Congress is intent on funding Justice and law enforcement as a top priority. This bill provides appropriations totaling $17.5 billion for Justice-- an increase of $1 billion above last year for the Justice Department. Including fees we provide the Department through appropriations action, the total Justice Department budget is $19.5 billion. Within the Justice Department, the FBI is provided $2.9 billion. Included in this is a large increase of $143 million for the FBI to enhance its counterterrorism activities. This amount includes $54 million to acquire counterterrorism readiness capabilities for responding to and managing incidents involving improvised explosive devices, chemical and biological agents, and cyber attacks. Also, $10 million is provided to stop child exploitation on the Internet, a new issue affecting our youth that this Committee held a special hearing on earlier this year. We have provided enhanced funding to reinvigorate our battle against organized crime and to combat the La Cosa Nostra's efforts to penetrate the securities industry. Finally, we have provided $44.5 million which will complete the new FBI laboratory at Quantico, Virginia. The Drug Enforcement Administration is funded at $1.1 billion. Included in this amount is $34 million for 60 new agents, $30 million for counter-drug efforts along the Southwest border, $11 million targeted for methamphetamine production and trafficking, and $10 million and 120 positions for efforts to reduce heroin trafficking--all priorities of the Senate. Also in Justice, the bill enhances INS border control by recommending 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, restoring the integrity of the naturalization process, and expanding revocation, incarcerations, and deportation activities. The INS is funded at $3.8 billion. A program that most members have been hearing about from their constituents is the extension of 245(i). The conferees have adopted a ``grandfathering'' clause that would allow 245(i) processing for anyone who has filed with the Attorney General or for labor certification with the Department of Labor by January 14, 1998. The CJS bill also provides funds to accelerate and expand efforts by U.S. Attorneys to collect the estimated $34 billion in unpaid child support. I'm especially pleased to note that an increase of $8.3 million is provided to activate the new National Advocacy Center in my home state. This center will provide training in litigation and advocacy to our Assistant U.S. Attorneys and State and Local Prosecutors. It will be to the U.S. Attorneys what Quanitco is to the FBI and DEA. Finally, we have included $1 million for our U.S. Attorney Rene Josey to continue his outstanding violent crime task force efforts with our state and local law enforcement personnel. The conference agreement provides $1.4 billion for the Community Policy program and continues our commitment to put 100,000 cops on the beat. I'm especially pleased to note that we have included $100 million for an innovative program that addresses COPS retention issues in smaller communities with populations below 50,000. In these small rural communities the COPS program has been especially effective. I've seen it first hand in communities across South Carolina, and I'm pleased that the House and Senate conferees were willing to support my initiative. Additional programs to note with Justice include: $25 million for the Regional Information Sharing System [RISS]; $505 million for the Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program and $523 for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program; $30 million for Drug Courts; $238.6 million for juvenile justice prevention programs including $25 million to combat underage drinking of alcoholic beverages. This last program was offered as an amendment to the bill by Senator Byrd, Senator Hatch and myself last summer. $271 million provided for Violence Against Women Programs. $556 million is provided for State Prison or ``Truth in Sentencing'' grants and $585 million is provided for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Finally, let me point out that this agreement includes $250 million for a new Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. I know that there is some controversy among my colleagues because we have provided this funding even though the House and Senate have not collectively completed action on an authorization bill. This program provides for such programs as: building, expanding or operating juvenile detention and corrections facilities; hiring additional juvenile judges, probation officers and court appointed defenders; drug courts; and hiring prosecutors. We have provided that these funds are available to states and local governments that consider the reforms provided for the House-passed bill. We have also provided that no state receive less than .5 percent. Everyone should be clear, that we are providing this as a stop-gap measure until the Senate is able to pass a juvenile justice bill. The bill language in this conference agreement makes it clear that these conditions are only for fiscal year 1998, and will cease upon enactment of a new Juvenile Justice authorization bill. In funding the Commerce Department, our bill provides $4.3 billion, an increase of $422 million over this year's enacted amounts. There are a number of accounts in Commerce that are worth noting. The International Trade Administration has been allocated $283 million this year, and it's four program activities are funded at the following levels: Trade Development is at $59 million; Market Access and Compliance has a total of $17.3 million, which is an increase from last year; the Import Administration ends up at $28.7 million; and the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service is given $171 million, an increase of almost $8 million from last year. The Bureau of Export Administration is given $43.9 million this year. Our agreement on BXA has some components that should be of no surprise to those familiar with this program. We've funded BXA to continue their counterterrorism activities, to address their new export control responsibilities that were transferred to them from the Department of State, and to begin activities related to their responsibilities under the Chemical weapons Convention Treaty. The Economic Development Administration, a favorite of many of my colleagues, is at the higher house level of $340 million, including $178 million for Title I Public Works program, $30 million for Title IX Economic Adjustment Assistance, $9.1 million for technical assistance, and $9.5 million for trade adjustment assistance. The bill funded the largest account in the Department of Commerce, NOAA, at $2 billion, slightly below the higher Senate number. This includes $241 million for the National Ocean Service, $346 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service, $277 million for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research activities, and $520 million for the National Weather Service. One thing NOAA isn't lacking is in the number of programs it funds. To mention a few, it should be noted that we've provided NOAA with $3.5 million for pfiesteria and algal bloom research, a new problem that we became all to aware of over the last few months here on the East Coast. We also gave the National Ocean Service $44 million for mapping and charting so it can meet its long- term mission requirements to examine ocean activities. The popular Sea Grant program has been continued at $56 million, funds have been allocated to study that omnipresent El Nino, and continued support is given to our National Weather satellites. I am especially pleased that we have included $1 million for our new Ocean Policy Commission, the first serious look at our ocean policy and NOAA since the Stratton Commission in the late 1960's. I've talked with Dr. Baker at NOAA, Admiral Watkins, and Dr. Ballard--and we all believe that it is time to reinvigorate our ocean programs and put the ``O back in NOAA.'' You know, we all spend so much time looking to space and a little mechanical robot on Mars, Yet 75% of our planet is ocean, and our exploration of it is woefully lacking. The hot topic of the Commerce Department this year and the political issue that consumed our bill, the Census Bureau, is provided with $550 million, which is an increase of $326 million. But funding wasn't the issue of controversy. Rather, we had a sticky situation to work out regarding the fate of the 2000 Decennial Census in terms of whether statistical sampling could be used for the last 10 percent of the population. The Census language that was finally agreed upon over the last few days is a compromise agreement between the White House and GOP leadership in the House which allows the Commerce Department to move forward with its efforts to plan for and conduct the year 2000 decennial census. The agreement seeks to ensure that the Federal Courts will rule on the constitutionality of using statistical sampling prior to the next census by creating expedited judicial review proceedings, and it establishes a Census Monitoring Board that will observe and monitor all aspects of the preparation of the 2000 census, including dress rehearsals. Now for the remaining programs in Commerce--the Patent and Trademark Office was provided with $716 million, including fees; we have been hearing from the Inspector General of Commerce about poor management over there and we are going to take a close look at PTO programs next fiscal year. With respect to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, it is funded at $677 million, slightly lower than enacted levels; I'm pleased that Manufacturing Extension Centers are funded at $113 million and the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] is funded at $193 million. I'm pleased that we seem to finally be getting to a sane policy on our Commerce technology programs. They are out lead edge in the trade war. This year the rhetoric subsided, and we started to get back to normalcy and ``adult supervision'' around here, as Senator Dole would say. No one is seriously considering unilaterally disarming in the trade war and disestablishing the Department of Commerce and our technology programs. Now to discuss the Judiciary--the total Judiciary account is funded at $3.463 billion, $200 million above enacted levels. We have provided the Federal Judges with a cost of living adjustment. And, with respect to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, we have agreed on a Commission to study judicial organization. So we have avoided a veto issue and will look to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to pick qualified, fair experts to review the situation. In the State Department and international programs title, we have included $4 billion for the Department of State and have supported the consolidation of our international affairs agencies. Within this amount we've provided $91 million to State and USIA to accelerate the replacement of obsolete computers and communications gear, and $19.6 million to renovate projects worldwide such as our facilities in Beijing, China. $9.5 million is provided for architectural and engineering work necessary to move our Embassy to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. I can't think of any other nation where we refuse to recognize its capital. It is time for us to put our Embassy in the capital of Israel. The bill has funded Contributions to International Organizations at $955 million to pay the costs assessed to the United States for membership in international organizations. Within this amount, $54 million is for payment of United Nations arrerages. Additionally, Contributions of International Peacekeeping Activities is funded at $256 million, including $46 million for payment of arrerages. So we have met our commitments under the budget agreement. I only hope that Chairman Helms and Senator Biden can get a State Department Authorization bill through the Congress so we can make meaningful changes in New York, and we can reorganize our international affairs into a more rational structure. I'm especially pleased that the conference adopted language that I proposed that requests the State Department to send a reprogramming to ensure that the United States maintains its vote in international organizations. With respect to organizations like the International Rubber Organization [INRO] we are hurting U.S. business and prestige by maintaining shortfalls. We are letting other third world nations dominate and have put the creditworthiness of the United States in a position along with the Ivory Coast and Nigeria. We need to keep current and keep our seat at the table. Other programs to note within this Title of the bill include $1.1 billion for United States Information Administration [USIA]. Under the USIA account, the National Endowment for Democracy is funded at $30 million, the East-West Center is provided with $12 million, the North- South Center is $1.5 million, International Broadcasting is $364 million, and Educational and Cultural Exchange programs are $198 million without the Senate-passed overhead certification requirements. Additionally, $41.5 million is provided for Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA]. Finally, in the Related Agencies Title of our bill, it should be noted that the Maritime Administration was funded at $138 million, with a level of $35.5 million for the Maritime Security Program; the Small Business Administration is funded at $705 million and for its non- credit programs, the bill provides $500,000 minimum level for all Small Business Development Centers; the Federal Trade Commission is funded at $106.5 million; and Legal Services Corporation is at $283 million, including Senator Wellstone's floor amendment which ensure that income eligibility determinations in cases of domestic violence are made only on the basis of the assets and income of the individual. Finally, on a separate but related note, I would like to take a moment to address a matter of importance regarding the Federal Communications Commission, which is provided for this Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. On July 1, the interstate access fees paid by long distance companies to connect their customers to the local telephone companies' networks were reduced by over $1.5 billion annually. AT&T and MCI responded to these reductions by announcing plans to pass these savings to their customers. AT&T committed to reduce its day and evening rates by 5 and 15 percent, respectively, on July 15. One of the news services reported that AT&T's residential customers would save $600 million and business customers would save $300 million annually. Similarly, MCI announced it will pass along these savings to customers as well. In the past, AT&T was regulated as a dominant carrier and regularly filed its tariffs with the Federal Communications Commission thereby providing the necessary verification of these types of savings for consumers. With AT&T now being a non-dominant carrier, it no longer has to file data with the Commission to justify its rates. There is some concern that the tariffs that AT&T and MCI have filed with the Commission do not contain a sufficient analysis to demonstrate the amount of the long distance price reductions have been passed on to consumers. At a minimum, the Commission should verify that amount of access charge reductions pledged by these carriers are passed on to consumers. The Commission should take whatever steps it deems necessary to ensure that these carriers furnish sufficient data to verify that consumers have indeed benefited from access charge reductions. The Commission should also monitor long distance rates to insure that the benefits of these reductions are not reversed by subsequent increases. Ensuring that the long distance carriers make good on their commitment to flow through access charge reductions to consumers in the form of lower long distance rates is an important issue that should not be overlooked by the Commission. Mr. President, this is a good bill and I support it. We have had to make some tough decisions, but under the able leadership of Chairman Gregg and his able staff, I think we have made the right decisions. Senator Gregg has really taken hold of this bill this year. And, of course, I want to thank my good friends in the other body, Chairman Hal Rogers and Mr. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. They are true professionals. They have outstanding staff, first rate professional staff in Jim Kulikowski, Therese McAuliffe, Jennifer Miller, Mike Ringler, Jane Wiseman, Pat Schleuter, Mark Murray, David Reich, Sally Gaines and Liz White. I encourage my colleagues to support the FY 1998 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, last year, as part of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996, we imposed a series of new requirements before an ``air carrier'' could hire a pilot. When the bill as originally crafted was being developed, we worked with the pilots' unions and with the Air Transport Association to develop a workable approach that is fair to pilots and airlines and advances aviation safety. H.R. 2626 clears up a number of technical problems, but continues the spirit of the original legislation--to make sure that pilots operating commercial aircraft are qualified. For many smaller carriers, such as on-demand carriers like Bankair in South Carolina, the new law created a number of logistical problems. I added a provision to the fiscal year 1998 Transportation Appropriations law to ensure that the FAA, as holder of some pilot records, is able to supply those records expeditiously. H.R. 2626 will allow air carriers to hire, but not use, a pilot until his or her records had been checked. Smaller carriers operating non- scheduled flights also are given additional flexibility. I support the changes, and urge the passage of H.R. 2626.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to thank Congressman Underwood of Guam for pursuing H.R. 2476. The bill, virtually identical to a bill reported by the Commerce Committee, S. 1196, puts the same burden on foreign air carriers serving the United States as those now imposed on U.S. carriers when dealing with the families affected by aviation disasters. Under existing law, U.S. carriers must develop and submit plans to the Department of Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board on how they will address the needs of the families of victims of disasters. The law today does not include foreign air carriers, and thus, H.R. 2476 is needed. The bill is supported by the Administration, and I support its adoption. What we are asking all of the carriers to do is treat people fairly. The U.S. carriers have already been asked to do it, and now we are asking the foreign air carriers to do it. All carriers, foreign or U.S., should be prepared to deal with the families and to provide them with the kinds of assistance they have every reason to expect. H.R. 2476 ensures that this will happen. I urge the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate passage of S. 1213, the Oceans Act of 1997. The bill calls for an action plan for the twenty-first century to explore, protect, and make better use of our oceans and coasts. Its passage is, quite simply, the most important step we can take today to ensure the future of our oceans and coasts. I thank my colleagues for their support, in particular, the leadership of the Commerce Committee, Senators McCain and Snowe, for their cosponsorship and their efforts over the last several weeks to bring this bill to the floor. Following in the Commerce Committee tradition with respect to ocean issues, this has been a bipartisan process. I also thank the other cosponsors of the legislation, Senators Stevens, Kerry, Breaux, Inouye, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Lautenberg, Akaka, Murkowski, Thurmond, and Murray for their continued support. Finally, I want to express my appreciation to the numerous academic, environmental, and industry groups who agree that the time has come for this bill. The legislation that is before the Senate today is a substitute by Senator Snowe and myself, that reflects the comments received from the administration and concerns expressed by Senator Chafee and others. The essential elements of the bill remain the same as the committee- reported version and would establish two new entities. First is a 16- member Commission on Ocean Policy (Commission) to provide recommendations for a national ocean and coastal policy. Second is the National Ocean Council (Council), a high-level Federal interagency working group to advise the President and the Commission, assist in policy development and implementation, and coordinate Federal programs relating to ocean and coastal activities. The changes made by the Snowe-Hollings substitute focus primarily on addressing concerns expressed regarding the establishment of the Council. Over the past two weeks, the National Security Council and the Department of Commerce have worked under Secretary Daley's able leadership to pull together the views of the numerous Federal entities involved in ocean and coastal activities. The results of that effort are reflected in the amendment, and I am including a letter from Secretary Daley expressing the administration's support for S. 1213 following my statement. At Senator Chafee's request, we also have agreed to sunset the Council one year after the Commission completes its report. As we have discussed with both the administration and Senator Chafee, the purpose of the Council is to ensure coordinated input by Federal agencies and departments in the development and implementation of a national ocean and coastal policy. The Council is intended to provide an important forum for administration ocean policy discussions, not to supersede other ongoing coordination mechanisms like the interagency working group on international ocean policy, nor to interfere with ongoing Federal activities under existing law. The changes made by the substitute should clarify that intent, and if, based on experience and the Commission recommendations, the Council proves to be an effective long- term mechanism for coordinating Federal ocean activities, it could be extended either administratively or legislatively. In 1966, Congress enacted the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act (1966 Act). This bill would update and replace that legislation. The 1966 Act established the Stratton Commission whose report, ``Our Nation and the Sea,'' defined national objectives and programs with respect to the oceans and in conjunction with the 1966 Act laid the foundation for U.S. ocean and coastal policy and programs, guiding their development for three decades. While the Stratton Commission displayed broad vision, the world has changed in numerous ways since 1966. The U.S. legal and bureaucratic framework related to the oceans has grown enormously in the past 30 years. In 1966, there was no NOAA, no Environmental Protection Agency, and no laws like the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or the Oil Pollution Act. Today people who work and live on the water face a patchwork of confusing and sometimes contradictory federal and state regulations. Fishermen tell me they need a law degree to go fishing. This bill will allow us to reduce conflicts while maintaining environmental and health safeguards. Oceans and coasts face pressures today that the authors of the 1966 Act could not have foreseen. Today, over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives in coastal areas which account for less than 10 percent of our land area. By the year 2010, 127 million people, an estimated 60 percent of Americans, will live along the coast. Greater understanding of ocean and coastal ecosystems and improved management are essential to maintain healthy coasts and to prepare for and protect communities from natural hazards like hurricanes. We need to do a better job of managing and using marine resources as demonstrated by fish kills, oil spills, the invasion of zebra mussels, and the death of thousands of marine animals from marine plastic debris. We have fallen short in defending our shores and waters. In recent years, New England has struggled with the collapse of their traditional cod, haddock, and flounder. In other regions, overfished stocks include sharks, swordfish, bluefin tuna, salmon, red snapper, grouper, and weakfish. Restoring fisheries could add an estimated $2.9 billion to the economy each year. However, we are allowing about 20,000 acres of coastal wetlands, important fish habitat, to disappear each year. Louisiana alone has lost half a million acres of wetlands since the mid 1950's. Environmental threats to the oceans are growing increasingly complex. This past summer, local newspapers reported daily on Pfiesteria, the tiny killer cell wreaking havoc in the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina. Thousands of fish were killed--literally eaten alive by this toxic organism--and some fishermen, swimmers, boaters, and scientists exposed to the cell experienced memory loss, skin lesions, and other troubling symptoms. Scientists suspect everything from inadequate city sewage plants to farm manure and fertilizer runoff. The technical, legal, and management tools to address Pfiesteria may exist collectively within a variety of federal and state agencies. However, we currently lack a structured and effective means to bring this expertise to bear on the problem. Another challenge is El Nino, the cyclical warming of ocean waters off the western coast of South America. The warming results in significant shifts in weather patterns, including rainfall and temperatures in the United States and elsewhere. Experts estimate that an additional 150 Americans die in storms and flooding in El Nino years. While El Nino is a natural phenomenon, human effects on the oceans and atmosphere may increase its magnitude and frequency. Advanced forecasts could reduce by up to $1 billion the agricultural, economic, and social impacts resulting from El Nino. In addition, action to reduce global warming and other changes to the oceans and atmosphere may reduce the severity of future El Nino events. We have an opportunity to take economic and scientific advantage of recent technological advances related to the oceans. Today, we still have explored only a tiny fraction of the sea, but with the use of new technologies what we have found is truly incredible. For example, hydrothermal vents, hot water geysers on the deep ocean floor, were discovered just 20 years ago by oceanographers trying to understand the formation of the earth's crust. Now this discovery has led to the identification of nearly 300 new types of marine animals with untold pharmaceutical and biomedical potential. A re-examination of national policies is also essential to maintain U.S. leadership on international ocean issues. On November 16, 1994, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea entered into force for most countries of the world. Although the United States has accepted most provisions of the treaty as customary international law and 120 other nations are party, U.S. ratification remains in question. At issue is whether changes made to the treaty in 1994 adequately correct the seabed mining provisions that the United States has opposed for twelve years. The last 31 years have brought great changes to our oceans and coast. Our nation needs to reexamine our policies and programs so that we can continue to explore, protect, and sustainably use ocean resources now and throughout the twenty-first century. The Oceans Act of 1997 will guide us through that process with the vision it demands. I urge the Senate to pass S. 1213. I ask unanimous consent a letter dated November 9, 1997 from the Secretary of Commerce be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, when TWA flight 800 exploded over the coast of Long Island on July 17, 1997, 230 people perished. They left behind people who loved and cared about them. They left a void in many people's lives. When a USAirways jet crashed in Charlotte in July 1994, 37 people died, including many from my State. The pain and suffering those families suffered is heartbreaking. H.R. 1271, the FAA Research, Engineering, and Development Authorization Act of 1997, authorizes more than 4450 million to conduct basic aviation safety research, with one primary goal--to reduce the likelihood that another family will lose a loved one in an aviation accident. When we talk about safety, it all begins with two factors--leadership and research. The U.S. today is the world's leader in aviation safety. However, that is not enough. We must maintain that leadership and continue to pursue the best means to avoid aviation disasters. Over the last several years, we have stressed the need to improve security. New machines continue to be tested and improved. This bill furthers that process. We also must remain vigilant about other areas to improve safety, like controlled flight into terrain and human factors. All too often an accident is a function of a human error. The error can be the result of technology design or human judgment. Research remains the key to making adjustments so that our families do not have to experience what the families of TWA flight 800 or the USAirways Charlotte flight had to endure. The bill also recognizes that we must work with our colleges and technical schools to develop programs to meet challenges of the future. Our Nation's aircraft maintenance program will be changing. Our air traffic control workforce and maintenance workforce will be changing with the new equipment scheduled to be installed over the next 5 years. We must remain ahead of the technological curve--working with the schools will facilitate our preparation for change. The administration knows this and has worked with me to address that issue. We worked hard with the administration on this bill, and it is my understanding that they support the bill. In the area of security, for example, the fiscal year 1998 Transportation Appropriations Act provided $44.225 million. The authorization in H.R. 1271 is more than $11 million more, an amount which will give the FAA flexibility to move funds from one account to another, should it be necessary. I understand that the FAA may request additional funding for fiscal year 1999 to further its modernization efforts. In addition, more funding for security may be requested, and we will need to consider those requests, if made. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.