Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be glad to yield that time. Go right ahead.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, I am privileged to support the confirmation of Bill Kennard's nomination to be Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. You will find no one more qualified than William Kennard. Mr. President, today, the Senate will consider the nomination of William Kennard for Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission [FCC]. Mr. Kennard has spent his career in the communications field--as a first amendment attorney with the National Association of Broadcasters; as a communications lawyer in private practice; and the last 3 years as general counsel of the FCC. Mr. Kennard brings a tremendous amount of experience to the job at a critical time in the communications industry. A great deal of work remains to be done to fully implement the 1996 act. He is eminently qualified for the task at hand. The overarching goals of the 1996 act are to preserve Universal Service, and to provide a transition from monopoly to open competition. Mr. Kennard understands that neither of these objectives will happen on their own accord. It will be the responsibility of Mr. Kennard, the three new commissioners confirmed last night, along with Commissioner Ness, to fulfill these objectives by balancing the competing interests of industry with the public interest. For the past 20 months, the FCC has been doing its best to implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The rules adopted by the FCC have generated a great deal of controversy and subsequent litigation. Most of those issues are either pending in the courts or before the FCC on reconsideration. So it goes without saying that Mr. Kennard will have a very important, and sometimes difficult, job ahead of him. First, and foremost, the new Commission must understand that the Universal Service System we have today is a mechanism designed to maintain low-cost affordable phone service in rural and high-cost areas. These areas of the country would not have had telephone service, much less any economic development, were it not for the Federal support and Government mandate of Universal Service. The Commission should be vigilant to maintain Universal Service and its attendant benefits. The second issue is the promotion of competition across the various industries. Much of the deregulation of the act was premised on the commitments made by industry to compete with each other. Now some segments of the industry are having second thoughts about competition. The grand plans pledged to the Congress over 2 years ago no longer seem so grand. Competition does not come with a money-back guarantee. The Congress did not guarantee any incumbent continued marketshare. Nor did the Congress guarantee that competitors would gain marketshare. What the Congress attempted to guarantee was the right to compete under certain conditons. It will be the FCC's job to enforce those conditions to bring the benefits of competition to consumers. More importantly, though, its job will be to protect consumers where competition and the marketplace fail. As the FCC decides each of these issues, the most important aspect of its responsibility is to safeguard the public interest. The FCC's job is to protect consumers by promoting competition and removing barriers to entry or, in the alternative, enforcing regulation where competition does not exist. Mr. President, you will find the frustration of those addressing this particular subject comes about from a failure of implementation by the private industry itself. We worked for 4 years on the Telecommunications Act that passed last year. It is noted that we had 95 votes. A strong bipartisan support was worked out to the satisfaction of all the entities. Now we find some of those entities coming in and petitioning and enjoining and appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are some 73 local carriers that now have enjoined their local commissions. You will find one particular RBOC that has petitioned the Court on the constitutionality of what we enacted after they sent a wonderful letter in support of what we enacted. What you are seeing on behalf of the industry overall is a freezing of the board by the majority. And there has been very little movement of cable into telephone, telephone into cable and RBOC into long distance. They have not met the so-called checklist, and have held up on it. That is what is really in force. So some of these mergers could well break it loose in the telecommunications wall--again, the wall of competition. Mr. Kennard, I am convinced, understands what is going on. He would have to at the Commission level as the general counsel. I hope under the law and the requirements of public interest and in balancing all of the interests of the various carriers with that public interest in mind that we can move forward. So I appreciate the situation and would be delighted to yield to others. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield such time as is necessary to the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. I think the distinguished Senator from New Jersey has his own time. I would be delighted to yield whatever time is necessary.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my good friend and former colleague Wyche Fowler on his confirmation as United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. This is a great and well-deserved honor for the former Senator from Georgia. Even more important, it is a blessing for America. Because his was a recess appointment, Wyche Fowler already has served with great distinction and success for over 1 year in Saudi Arabia. President Clinton appointed him to this post just days before the June 25, 1996, terrorist bombing of the United States military residence in Dahran. Although he took the ambassadorship at one of the most tenuous moments in United States-Saudi diplomatic relations, Wyche embraced the challenge and helped cement the United States relationship with Saudi Arabia, one of our most important allies. Wyche was sworn in as Ambassador on August 16, 1996. His appointment came at an important moment in the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Despite the difficulties that have surrounded the bombing investigation, he has served his country well and protected American interests in the region with tenacity and skill. Of course, Mr. President, this is no surprise to those of us who have followed Wyche Fowler's career of public service or worked closely with him during his 16 years in Congress. Elected to the Senate in 1986, Wyche served on the Appropriations, Budget, Energy, and Agriculture Committees. As assistant floor leader, he helped fashion a bipartisan consensus on major public policy issues. Many of us remember Wyche Fowler as an unusually reflective Member of this body, who talked often of conserving our natural resources and energy sources. I can remember listening with humor and fascination as he used electric toothbrushes to point out the danger of decadent applications of technology. Before becoming the first Atlantan elected to the Senate, Wyche Fowler represented Atlanta's First District in the House of Representatives. First elected in 1977, he served on the Ways and Means and Foreign Relations Committees, as well as the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Congressional Arts Caucus. Wyche's legislative record is long and distinguished: he tried to stop oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and protect national wetlands; recodified and strengthened the national historic preservation law; established joint public/private ventures in alternative energy; and ensured interest-free relief for farmers in the Farm Credit System overhaul. The consensus-building skills Wyche learned in Congress have stood him in good stead in Riyadh. Just as valuable, Mr. President, is his affable personality. All his colleagues in the House and Senate remember Wyche Fowler as a genial and charismatic fellow, not to mention a great singer of hymns and a superb storyteller. In fact, Wyche used to entertain us with the same country songs he performed as a teenager on an Atlanta talent show. Though the Saudis may not appreciate country ballads, I am sure that they will find Wyche Fowler every bit as hard-working, engaging, and honest as the people of Georgia and his colleagues have. And, Mr. President, Wyche is genuinely fascinated by Saudi Arabia's people and culture. He has begun to learn Arabic, and already has indulged his enthusiasm for Arabian history and archaeology by trekking on camel through the deserts of Saudi Arabia's Empty Quarter. America is fortunate to have Wyche Fowler as its Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. His diplomatic skills will see us successfully through a delicate and vital period in our relations with that nation. In this instance, Mr. President, Georgia's loss was the Nation's gain.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to thank Dave Wright for his many years of service to the listeners of Columbia, South Carolina's ``Sunny 100'' radio and to congratulate him on a job well done. His tenure of nearly 40 years is a tribute to his tenacity, acumen, and energy. His dedication to his craft is an inspiration to aspiring broadcasters everywhere. Dave Wright's friends and colleagues will agree with me that his retirement is a bittersweet occasion. We wish him the best as he embarks on a new chapter in his life, yet we do not want to see him leave the airwaves. I always have considered Dave Wright to be the voice of Columbia and shall miss hearing him during my travels through the city. With Gene McKay and Bill Benton, he combined local news reporting with humor, music, and listener interaction to make the ``Good Morning Columbia'' radio show one of the best in the Southeast. Over the span of five decades, Dave Wright has provided the people of Columbia with humorous commentary on community news. It is no secret why they look forward to tuning in to Sunny 100 in the morning. Of course, his long record of service extends beyond Columbia; we all are proud of his service in the Air Force during the Korean war. Fortunately for us, Dave Wright is not completely retiring from the news business. South Carolinians look forward to his future coverage of golf tournaments around the country, as they have since 1962. And we all are hoping to see him devote more time to one of his greatest loves: stand-up comedy. Today I join the people of Columbia in thanking Dave Wright for brightening our lives and our airwaves for almost 40 years.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC], Mr. Harold Creel, and the other Federal Maritime Commissioners, Mrs. Ming Hsu, Mr. Joe Scroggins, and Mr. Delmond Won for their resolve in pursuing trade liberalization of Japan's restrictive port practices. The problem of unfair, restrictive port practices in Japan is a long standing one. The United States carriers and United States Government have asked the Japanese to reform their system for over a decade. The Japanese had refused even to acknowledge that this was a problem, much less to resolve it. Two years ago, the carriers, weary of the futility of diplomatic and commercial pressure, asked the FMC to address this. This was not a matter of the FMC grandstanding or attempting to justify its existence. In fact, I would note that the same Japanese restrictive port practices were challenged at the World Trade Organization [WTO] by European carriers. To date, the WTO has not acted on the European carrier petition. However, the FMC acted vigorously at the request of United States industry interests to address a long-standing, Japanese-created situation that could not be resolved through more amicable means. In September 1995, the FMC issued orders to gather information on the subject. In November 1996, the FMC issued a proposed rule, with monetary sanctions to go into effect April 1997. In April 1997, an agreement between the United States and Japanese Governments resulted in Japanese commitments to achieve certain steps toward reform by July 1997. Accordingly, the FMC postponed the effective date of the sanctions until September 1997. But then the Japanese failed to meet their April commitments. In September, the Japanese again asked for a postponement of the FMC rule. The FMC refused, and beginning in September, fees of $100,000 per voyage began accruing. The fees for the month of September, which totaled $4 million, were due and payable October 15, 1997. Despite frequent assurances by the Japanese carriers that they would pay the fees, when the October deadline was reached, they refused to do so. Accordingly, the FMC took the next step, which is authorized by statute and specifically spelled out in the final rule: to request that Customs deny clearance of Japanese vessels at United States ports, and to request the Coast Guard to detain the vessels. This action is entirely avoidable upon payment by the Japanese carriers of their now overdue debts to the United States. The Japanese port practices at issue result in costly, arbitrary, and unnecessary expenditures by United States carriers and prevent them from making their own decisions on whom to hire for stevedoring services, from being licensed to operate their own terminals, and from operating efficiently. These practices are injurious not only to U.S. carriers, but to all U.S. importers and exporters who rely on ocean shipping, and to the American consumer. Japanese port costs are the highest in the world, and American consumers of Japanese goods ultimately foot the bill. Moreover, Japanese carriers are not subject to such restrictions in their operations in the United States. None of these achievements of the FMC would have been possible were the FMC not an independent agency, separate from the executive branch departments. Only an independent agency, free from political pressure and the host of other concerns which frequently paralyze larger executive branch agencies, could have acted so swiftly and effectively. We must ensure that the FMC continue to retain its independent status. It is my understanding that United States and Japanese negotiators are coming close to an agreement that would resolve this issue. This issue would not be resolved, but for the actions of the FMC. Bravo, keep up the good work, and ensure that whatever issues the Japanese Government agrees to are enforced for the benefit of the shipping public.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Bill Spong and I go back a long way. We were the only Democrats elected to the Senate in 1966. Back then, new Senators were expected to be seen and not heard. Bill and I were dutiful--we took the last two seats on the back row of the Democratic side of the Senate floor and swapped afternoons and evenings presiding as Speaker Pro Tempore. In those days they gave Golden Gavels to members who presided over the Senate for more than 100 hours; Bill and I each received one. Bill Spong was one of the quietest and most thoughtful men ever to serve in the Senate. He brought his considerable experience in law and banking to bear on every issue before the Senate and carefully analyzed each piece of legislation on which he voted. He set an example of what a Senator in a deliberative democracy should be. The Senate was a different place then. Republicans and Democrats worked closely together in a collegial atmosphere. Though they differed on many issues, a majority of Senators from both parties came together to produce legislation for the good of the Nation. Now the Members of the two parties meet only to ambush one another. In today's climate of partisan warfare, it is hard to find anyone who can match Bill Spong's civility. Senator Spong made many friends for Virginia in his 6 years of service. He was an outstanding and committed representative of the people of his state. His election loss in 1972 deprived Virginia and the United States of an able and promising Senator. Undoubtedly, Senator Spong would have won reelection and served for many more years had the public confusion and division caused by Vietnam and his seat on the Foreign Relations Committee not placed him in an untenable position. After leaving the Senate, he served with great distinction as a noted mediator and as Dean of the School of Law at William and Mary. In these capacities, he continued to serve his community. Bill Spong's death yesterday shocked and saddened us all. It deprives us of a much-needed model of dedication, service, and leadership. Let us all hope that his great qualities will find their incarnation in future servants of the public good.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, occasionally there comes along an individual who inspires everyone with his compassion, dedication, and devotion. Alex English is such a person. Mr. English was born in Columbia, S.C., amid great poverty. As a child, he faced overt racism from many of the city's white residents; in his neighborhood, there were few role models he could emulate. It would have been easy for Alex English to capitulate to the odds, to become a victim of the oppressive poverty and violence that surrounded him. But he did not. Instead, Alex English became a basketball player. Not just any basketball player, but one of the greatest in the world. On Monday, September 29, 1997, he was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. The hall of fame recognized him for his 15- year National Basketball Association career, during which he made the All-Star Team eight times and the All-NBA second team three times. Mr. English led the NBA in scoring in the 1985-86 season. Today, Alex English is No. 9 on the NBA's all-time scoring list. But Alex English's greatest attributes are not his feather-soft jump shot or his patented, smooth-as-silk drive to the basket. They are his qualities as a warm and generous person. Alex English was first and foremost a team player, in life and in basketball. At his induction on Monday, he said, ``Team play was the most important thing for me. I had players around me who knew their roles; there was no selfishness.'' This unselfish attitude and self-effacing manner is rare among today's famous athletes. On and off the court, Alex English's grace and poise always have stood out. Lou Carnesecca, former St. John's coach and 1992 Hall of Fame inductee, noted that Alex ``always comported himself so well--with class.'' Dr. Jack Ramsay, another Hall of Fame coach, seconded Carnesecca's praise. These great coaches are telling us what we in South Carolina already know: as a player and person, Alex English is in a league of his own. We in South Carolina are proud to call Alex English our own. He has been inducted into the South Carolina Athletic Hall of Fame and the University of South Carolina Hall of Fame, as well as the Colorado Hall of Fame. Fortunately for us, Alex also has been quick to acknowledge his South Carolina roots. ``I carry all of you with me,'' he said to the people of Columbia after his induction on Monday. ``Columbia has been a very important part of my career; the people there have always treated me very kindly.'' Alex English continues to reside in Columbia, preferring to live quietly among old friends rather than ostentatiously. He has not forgotten his old teammates at Dreher High School and the University of South Carolina. He is known to his neighbors and friends as a humanitarian, philanthropist, businessman, and ambassador of goodwill. He gives generously of his time and money. As George Glymph, Alex English's high school coach said, ``When the good Lord wanted a role model for the ultimate professional, family man, warrior, he made Alex.'' Because of Alex English's contributions, his community--our community--is a better place. At his induction, Alex English told the press, ``I love the people of Columbia dearly.'' Alex, the feeling is mutual.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. In his book ``Breaking the News,'' Jim Fallows writes: ``If the public is confused, alienated, pessimistic or hostile to government, that is only partly the public's fault. . . .'' And he goes on to say, ``Journalism should lead the public by pointing out realities.'' So I briefly point out a reality, Mr. President, to the Congress here this afternoon. In ``The Economic and Budget Outlook'' of the Congressional Budget Office--the authority with respect to budgetary figures such as the balanced budget, deficits and surpluses--we find on page 34, Mr. President, the reality that while, yes, a unified deficit is listed as $34 billion, the actual deficit for the year 1997 that ends at midnight tonight is $177 billion. That is the deficit. The media should report this, the reality, and not the fraudulent unified deficit. We are spending $177 billion more than we are taking in. The unified deficit is $34 billion because they count the surpluses from the airports, the highway trust funds, Social Security, and the military and civil service pension funds--billions of dollars moved over. But that does not obscure the fact, nor it should not obscure the fact, that as of this fiscal year, when we are all talking about wonderful reductions in deficits, we are running a real deficit of $177 billion. Now, Mr. President, 5 years out when we all say, ``Oh, we have a balanced budget for the first time since Lyndon Johnson,'' and everyone is running around shouting ``balance!'' there will be no balance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In the year 2002, the deficit, rather than being in balance, will be $161 billion. And that assumes optimistically that 95 percent of the domestic cuts occur in the last 2 years. I can assure the distinguished Senator from North Carolina that the deficit will be bigger 5 years out than it is today, at the end of this fiscal year. Looking at the figures across the board for the next 5 years, I see that the CBO forecasts next year's deficit to be $210 billion; the year following that, 1999, the deficit will be $226 billion. Go across the board and you will find out the so-called balanced budget actually increases the national debt by $1 trillion. Now why is that dangerous? That is dangerous because you cannot avoid the interest costs on the national debt. The national debt is now in excess of $5.3 trillion, and going up to over $7 trillion in the next 10 years. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that even with low-interest rates we will spend $358 billion in the next year just servicing the national debt. This amounts to almost $1 billion a day. This is $1 billion a day we cannot spend on new roads or schools. The first thing the Government does every day is borrow another $1 billion to pay interest on the national debt. Now, if you managed your family finances or your business this way, you would not last long; but we are doing it. All this reminds me of Denny McLain. He was convicted earlier this year of using his company's pension fund to pay off his company's debt. You see, we passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994, and when Denny violated that act, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison. If you can find what prison he is in, tell Denny he made a mistake. He should have run for the Senate: instead of getting a prison sentence, he would have gotten the Good Government award. That is what we are doing around here--stealing from the American people's pension funds. And we are patting each other on the back. This is a sweetheart deal. Both parties are agreeing to lie to the American people so that we can proclaim the budget is balanced. The truth of the matter is, we have a deficit now, and we will still have one in 2002. This year's much-ballyhooed budget deal increases spending $52 billion and cuts revenues $95 billion. Now, how can you balance anything by increasing your spending and cutting your revenues? You can't. But that is what we are claiming. It is Rome all over again, and we are trying to make the people happy with bread and circuses. Only today, the Congress' circuses are spending increases and tax cuts and shouts of ``balance, balance, balance.'' I yield the floor, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and my colleague from North Carolina. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business and my remarks not interrupt the pending amendment.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Highway and Surface Transportation Safety Act of 1997. This legislation is designed to reauthorize federal highway safety and surface transportation programs that are under the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. As the Members of this body know, the Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over Federal agencies that oversee highway safety and surface transportation policies. These agencies include the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], which administers automobile safety regulations and Federal safety grant programs, such as anti-drunk-driving and seatbelt use grants; the Research and Special Projects Administration [RSPA], which assists States in responding to hazardous materials spills; the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], which administers the truck safety programs; and the Federal Railroad Administration [FRA], which regulates rail safety. Each of these agencies, as well as the policies under their authority, is vital to ensuring that Americans are provided with the safest and most efficient transportation, including safe automobiles, highways, and public transportation systems. In addition to preserving the security of our roadways, the measures administered by these agencies are critical to the health of our Nation's economy. The availability of the goods we consume and that are essential to our everyday lives depend on efficiently functioning transportation systems. The participation of the Federal Government in assuring that our automobiles and roadways are safe has been affirmed overwhelmingly by the American public. A recent Lou Harris poll shows that 91 percent of Americans believe the Federal Government has a role in assuring safe highways and 94 percent believe it is important to have motor vehicle safety standards. Our transportation and highway safety policies deserve as much attention as campaign finance reform, the popular measure of today. Yes, we must clean up the election system, but we also must clean up our roadways. NHTSA reports that every year over 41,000 Americans are killed on our Nation's highways--that is an average of 114 lives every day. In just the past 5 years alone, over 160,000 Americans have lost their lives, and more than 12 million have suffered serious injuries due to traffic accidents and road hazards--at a cost over $700 billion dollars. Astoundingly, almost 25 percent of these traffic fatalities involve children. In 1995, over 9,000 kids were killed in auto accidents. Of course, no poll, and no economic gauge, can measure the value of losing a precious young life. Studies, however, show that many of these accidents and fatalities are preventable. Most accidents are due to reckless behavior, such as drunk driving. According to NHTSA, alcohol-related accidents are responsible for over 40 percent of traffic fatalities. That means almost half of the tens of thousands of Americans that die every year because of traffic accidents can be saved if we can just prevent people from driving drunk. That is why I have supported measures in the past, and included provisions in this legislation, to encourage the enactment of stringent anti-drunk-driving laws. In addition to deterring the reckless behavior of those that cause accidents, there are steps every vehicle occupant can take to enhance safety. All safety experts agree that the most simple, and most effective, way to protect ourselves from accidental injuries is to buckle up--wear a seatbelt. During the early 1980's an active campaign was initiated by NHTSA and public safety groups to encourage the use of seat-belts. The campaign had many positive results--helping to increase seatbelt use from 11 percent in 1980 to a current use rate of 68 percent. But 68 percent is still not sufficient. To continue to save lives, we must boost the use rate, at the very least, to the 90 percent range. This is why I joined Senator McCain earlier this year in sending letters to all State Governors encouraging the enactment of tougher seatbelt laws nationwide. Legislation The legislation I am introducing is designed to address these important safety issues. The following is a summary of many of the major provisions: Drunk driving--The bill reauthorizes NHTSA's safety grant programs, which include incentive grants to States to encourage the adoption of stringent drunk driving laws. Seatbelt Grant Program--The bill establishes for the first time ever a formal Federal seatbelt grant program to encourage states to adopt primary seatbelt laws. Primary seatbelt laws permit police to stop persons solely for not wearing a seatbelt. The new grant program has been included in lieu of the administration's proposal which attempted to force States to adopt primary seatbelt laws by reducing their highway construction funds. Required warnings--Vans to transport children--A provision has been included to require NHTSA to notify car dealers each year about Federal regulations that prohibit the sale of vans to schools for the transportation of students. This policy has been adopted to prevent the transport of children in less safe vehicles. Hazardous materials transportation Reauthorization--The bill reauthorizes appropriations for assisting States in responding to hazardous materials spills. Sanitary food transportation--The bill authorizes the transfer from the Department of Transportation to the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] the responsibility of ensuring that trucks and rail cars that transport the Nation's food supply are sanitary. This change is needed in order to take advantage of FDA's expertise in determining the cleanliness of these transports. Rail and mass transportation anti-terrorism--The legislation increases the penalties for anyone convicted of a terrorist attack on railroads or mass transport systems and gives the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] the lead role in investigating such incidents. Rail and mass transportation safety--This legislation requires that DOT's Federal Transit Administration consult with the Federal Railroad Administration on relevant rail safety issues in making any grant or loan under its commuter railroad authority. Boating safety--The bill extends funding for the Clean Vessel Act, and authorizes spending for State grants for recreational boating safety, vessel pump-outs, facilities for large recreational vessels, and sport fishing outreach and communications. Conclusion This legislation has been drafted from the framework of the administration's proposed highway safety bill. However, a number of changes have been made as a result of consultation with highway safety and consumer groups, such as the Advocates for Highway Safety and Public Citizens, as well as the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, in an effort to craft the best safety bill possible. I look forward to working with Chairman McCain and other committee members, in addition to the highway safety organizations, as we begin our work on the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Highway and Surface Transportation Safety Act of 1997. This legislation is designed to reauthorize federal highway safety and surface transportation programs that are under the jurisdiction of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. As the Members of this body know, the Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over Federal agencies that oversee highway safety and surface transportation policies. These agencies include the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], which administers automobile safety regulations and Federal safety grant programs, such as anti-drunk-driving and seatbelt use grants; the Research and Special Projects Administration [RSPA], which assists States in responding to hazardous materials spills; the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], which administers the truck safety programs; and the Federal Railroad Administration [FRA], which regulates rail safety. Each of these agencies, as well as the policies under their authority, is vital to ensuring that Americans are provided with the safest and most efficient transportation, including safe automobiles, highways, and public transportation systems. In addition to preserving the security of our roadways, the measures administered by these agencies are critical to the health of our Nation's economy. The availability of the goods we consume and that are essential to our everyday lives depend on efficiently functioning transportation systems. The participation of the Federal Government in assuring that our automobiles and roadways are safe has been affirmed overwhelmingly by the American public. A recent Lou Harris poll shows that 91 percent of Americans believe the Federal Government has a role in assuring safe highways and 94 percent believe it is important to have motor vehicle safety standards. Our transportation and highway safety policies deserve as much attention as campaign finance reform, the popular measure of today. Yes, we must clean up the election system, but we also must clean up our roadways. NHTSA reports that every year over 41,000 Americans are killed on our Nation's highways--that is an average of 114 lives every day. In just the past 5 years alone, over 160,000 Americans have lost their lives, and more than 12 million have suffered serious injuries due to traffic accidents and road hazards--at a cost over $700 billion dollars. Astoundingly, almost 25 percent of these traffic fatalities involve children. In 1995, over 9,000 kids were killed in auto accidents. Of course, no poll, and no economic gauge, can measure the value of losing a precious young life. Studies, however, show that many of these accidents and fatalities are preventable. Most accidents are due to reckless behavior, such as drunk driving. According to NHTSA, alcohol-related accidents are responsible for over 40 percent of traffic fatalities. That means almost half of the tens of thousands of Americans that die every year because of traffic accidents can be saved if we can just prevent people from driving drunk. That is why I have supported measures in the past, and included provisions in this legislation, to encourage the enactment of stringent anti-drunk-driving laws. In addition to deterring the reckless behavior of those that cause accidents, there are steps every vehicle occupant can take to enhance safety. All safety experts agree that the most simple, and most effective, way to protect ourselves from accidental injuries is to buckle up--wear a seatbelt. During the early 1980's an active campaign was initiated by NHTSA and public safety groups to encourage the use of seat-belts. The campaign had many positive results--helping to increase seatbelt use from 11 percent in 1980 to a current use rate of 68 percent. But 68 percent is still not sufficient. To continue to save lives, we must boost the use rate, at the very least, to the 90 percent range. This is why I joined Senator McCain earlier this year in sending letters to all State Governors encouraging the enactment of tougher seatbelt laws nationwide. Legislation The legislation I am introducing is designed to address these important safety issues. The following is a summary of many of the major provisions: Drunk driving--The bill reauthorizes NHTSA's safety grant programs, which include incentive grants to States to encourage the adoption of stringent drunk driving laws. Seatbelt Grant Program--The bill establishes for the first time ever a formal Federal seatbelt grant program to encourage states to adopt primary seatbelt laws. Primary seatbelt laws permit police to stop persons solely for not wearing a seatbelt. The new grant program has been included in lieu of the administration's proposal which attempted to force States to adopt primary seatbelt laws by reducing their highway construction funds. Required warnings--Vans to transport children--A provision has been included to require NHTSA to notify car dealers each year about Federal regulations that prohibit the sale of vans to schools for the transportation of students. This policy has been adopted to prevent the transport of children in less safe vehicles. Hazardous materials transportation Reauthorization--The bill reauthorizes appropriations for assisting States in responding to hazardous materials spills. Sanitary food transportation--The bill authorizes the transfer from the Department of Transportation to the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] the responsibility of ensuring that trucks and rail cars that transport the Nation's food supply are sanitary. This change is needed in order to take advantage of FDA's expertise in determining the cleanliness of these transports. Rail and mass transportation anti-terrorism--The legislation increases the penalties for anyone convicted of a terrorist attack on railroads or mass transport systems and gives the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] the lead role in investigating such incidents. Rail and mass transportation safety--This legislation requires that DOT's Federal Transit Administration consult with the Federal Railroad Administration on relevant rail safety issues in making any grant or loan under its commuter railroad authority. Boating safety--The bill extends funding for the Clean Vessel Act, and authorizes spending for State grants for recreational boating safety, vessel pump-outs, facilities for large recreational vessels, and sport fishing outreach and communications. Conclusion This legislation has been drafted from the framework of the administration's proposed highway safety bill. However, a number of changes have been made as a result of consultation with highway safety and consumer groups, such as the Advocates for Highway Safety and Public Citizens, as well as the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives, in an effort to craft the best safety bill possible. I look forward to working with Chairman McCain and other committee members, in addition to the highway safety organizations, as we begin our work on the legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Frist, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the programs of the U.S. Fire Administration [USFA]. The United States currently has one of the worst fire records of any country in the industrial world. More than 2 million fires are reported in the United States every year. Annually, these fires result in approximately 4,500 deaths, 30,000 civilian injuries, more than $8 billion in direct property losses, and more than $50 billion in costs to taxpayers. In my State of South Carolina, in 1995, the most recent year in which data are available, 12,776 fires were reported resulting in 12 deaths, 103 injuries, and over $40 million in property losses. Even more disheartening is the fact that over 80 percent of the annual deaths and injuries from fires occur in residential fires. In South Carolina, while only 3,196 of the fires were residential, those fires claimed 8 lives and caused 74 injuries. As terrible as these statistics are, they would reflect a far more tragic picture were it not for the USFA. The USFA was created under the 1974 act, pursuant to the recommendation of the National Commission on Fire and Control. The USFA is a part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and its responsibilities are to administer programs, research, and applied engineering projects to assist State and local governments in fire prevention and control. The USFA works with State and local governments specifically to educate the public in fire safety and prevention, control arson, collect and analyze data related to fire, conduct research and development in fire suppression, promote firefighter health and safety, and conduct fire service training. The USFA assists our Nation's fire service which comprises of approximately 1.2 million members, 80 percent of whom are volunteers. The fire service is one of the most hazardous professions in the country. Firefighters not only confront daily the dangers of fire; they also are required to respond to other natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, medical emergencies, and hazardous materials spills. The USFA administers the National Fire Academy, which sponsors off-campus and on-campus training and management programs for members of the fire and rescue services, and allied professionals. The effort of the USFA is focused in four areas: First, public education and awareness and arson control; second, data collection and analysis; third, fire service training; and fourth, technology and research and firefighter health and safety. Through public education and awareness the USFA seeks to identify and educate the groups for whom fire presents the greatest menace. Efforts are focused to increase safety and reduce losses. For example, whether by accident or on purpose, children start over 100,000 fires per years. About 25 percent of the fires that kill young children are started by children playing with fire. The USFA through public-private partnerships had educated children with initiatives such as the ``Sesame Street Fire Safety Activity Book for Preschoolers,'' National Safe Kids, and various guides for parents and teachers. Senior citizens are at the highest risk of being killed in a fire. The USFA has targeted this group through public service announcements with added focus on the importance of buying and maintaining residential smoke detectors. Arsonists are responsible for over 500,000 fires every year. Arson is the No. 1 cause of all fires. Even though it is the leading cause of fire, only 15 percent of arson cases result in arrests with juveniles accounting for 55 percent of arrests, and only 2 percent result in convictions. It is the second leading cause of fire deaths in residences and the leading cause of dollar loss due to fire. In 1994, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available, the total number of arson fires in the United States was estimated at 548,500--accounting for an estimated 560 fire deaths, 3,440 fire injuries, and $3.6 billion in property damage. Of greater concern are investigators reports that more people are choosing to use fire as a weapon. According to the USFA's ``Arson in the United States'' report, ``Investigators are becoming more aware of Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs being used as incendiary devices. Fires caused by explosives or motivated by spite and revenge tend to be more deadly because they often target residential structures, in keeping with the desire to inflict personal harm.'' In my own State of South Carolina, we suffer from the worst record for church burnings--over 30 since 1991. I visited with Rev. Lester Grant of Shiloh Baptist Church in Townville, SC, last month, and we discussed the recent trend of targeting churches with this new weapon of hatred and violence. I was impressed with how our church communities are rallying and growing stronger in the rubble of fires. Church burnings, whether acts of hatred or vandalism, have to stop. We must do more to assist our church communities in stopping these vile efforts. The USFA has initiated several measures to combat this crime, including: community grants in high risk areas to hire part-time law enforcement officers, and to pay for law enforcement overtime and other church arson prevention activities; National Fire Academy training courses; additional training and education for arson investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; arson prevention information for the general public; and juvenile arson prevention workshops. Although the President's budget request for fiscal year 1997 for arson-fighting activities was reduced, this bill restores that funding at last year's level. USFA's emphasis on data collection and analysis provides it with the necessary tools for identifying problems and forecasting trends. USFA use this data to focus efforts in the areas that will most significantly reduce casualties and property losses caused by fire. National Fire data are published through USFA's National Fire Incident Reporting System, the only centralized and uniform collection of fire data in the United States. Regarding fire service training, Mr. President, and the National Fire Academy provides national leadership for fire and emergency medical services personnel through education and training. The Academy offers training and educational programs at the Emmitsburg campus and at other sites throughout the country. The Academy trained 83,000 students in 1996 and plans to increase this number to 300,000 per year in the future. There now are four applicants for each available slot for many of the Academy's courses. Finally, the USFA conducts research on technology to improve the occupational health and safety of firefighters including improvements to protective clothing and equipment, lifesaving operational technologies and equipment like liquid fire extinguishing agents, and equipment used in vehicle extrication and complex rescues. Mr. President, the efforts of our Nation's 1.2 million firefighters are invaluable; they risk their lives every day to save the lives and property of others. The USFA provides the necessary education, data analysis, training, and technology needed to ensure that these brave individuals do their job as efficiently and safely as possible. We in Congress need to do our job: We need to enact this legislation to ensure that both firefighters and the USFA get the financial resources they need to serve the public. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Frist, in introducing legislation to reauthorize the programs of the U.S. Fire Administration [USFA]. The United States currently has one of the worst fire records of any country in the industrial world. More than 2 million fires are reported in the United States every year. Annually, these fires result in approximately 4,500 deaths, 30,000 civilian injuries, more than $8 billion in direct property losses, and more than $50 billion in costs to taxpayers. In my State of South Carolina, in 1995, the most recent year in which data are available, 12,776 fires were reported resulting in 12 deaths, 103 injuries, and over $40 million in property losses. Even more disheartening is the fact that over 80 percent of the annual deaths and injuries from fires occur in residential fires. In South Carolina, while only 3,196 of the fires were residential, those fires claimed 8 lives and caused 74 injuries. As terrible as these statistics are, they would reflect a far more tragic picture were it not for the USFA. The USFA was created under the 1974 act, pursuant to the recommendation of the National Commission on Fire and Control. The USFA is a part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and its responsibilities are to administer programs, research, and applied engineering projects to assist State and local governments in fire prevention and control. The USFA works with State and local governments specifically to educate the public in fire safety and prevention, control arson, collect and analyze data related to fire, conduct research and development in fire suppression, promote firefighter health and safety, and conduct fire service training. The USFA assists our Nation's fire service which comprises of approximately 1.2 million members, 80 percent of whom are volunteers. The fire service is one of the most hazardous professions in the country. Firefighters not only confront daily the dangers of fire; they also are required to respond to other natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, medical emergencies, and hazardous materials spills. The USFA administers the National Fire Academy, which sponsors off-campus and on-campus training and management programs for members of the fire and rescue services, and allied professionals. The effort of the USFA is focused in four areas: First, public education and awareness and arson control; second, data collection and analysis; third, fire service training; and fourth, technology and research and firefighter health and safety. Through public education and awareness the USFA seeks to identify and educate the groups for whom fire presents the greatest menace. Efforts are focused to increase safety and reduce losses. For example, whether by accident or on purpose, children start over 100,000 fires per years. About 25 percent of the fires that kill young children are started by children playing with fire. The USFA through public-private partnerships had educated children with initiatives such as the ``Sesame Street Fire Safety Activity Book for Preschoolers,'' National Safe Kids, and various guides for parents and teachers. Senior citizens are at the highest risk of being killed in a fire. The USFA has targeted this group through public service announcements with added focus on the importance of buying and maintaining residential smoke detectors. Arsonists are responsible for over 500,000 fires every year. Arson is the No. 1 cause of all fires. Even though it is the leading cause of fire, only 15 percent of arson cases result in arrests with juveniles accounting for 55 percent of arrests, and only 2 percent result in convictions. It is the second leading cause of fire deaths in residences and the leading cause of dollar loss due to fire. In 1994, the most recent year for which comprehensive data is available, the total number of arson fires in the United States was estimated at 548,500--accounting for an estimated 560 fire deaths, 3,440 fire injuries, and $3.6 billion in property damage. Of greater concern are investigators reports that more people are choosing to use fire as a weapon. According to the USFA's ``Arson in the United States'' report, ``Investigators are becoming more aware of Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs being used as incendiary devices. Fires caused by explosives or motivated by spite and revenge tend to be more deadly because they often target residential structures, in keeping with the desire to inflict personal harm.'' In my own State of South Carolina, we suffer from the worst record for church burnings--over 30 since 1991. I visited with Rev. Lester Grant of Shiloh Baptist Church in Townville, SC, last month, and we discussed the recent trend of targeting churches with this new weapon of hatred and violence. I was impressed with how our church communities are rallying and growing stronger in the rubble of fires. Church burnings, whether acts of hatred or vandalism, have to stop. We must do more to assist our church communities in stopping these vile efforts. The USFA has initiated several measures to combat this crime, including: community grants in high risk areas to hire part-time law enforcement officers, and to pay for law enforcement overtime and other church arson prevention activities; National Fire Academy training courses; additional training and education for arson investigators with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; arson prevention information for the general public; and juvenile arson prevention workshops. Although the President's budget request for fiscal year 1997 for arson-fighting activities was reduced, this bill restores that funding at last year's level. USFA's emphasis on data collection and analysis provides it with the necessary tools for identifying problems and forecasting trends. USFA use this data to focus efforts in the areas that will most significantly reduce casualties and property losses caused by fire. National Fire data are published through USFA's National Fire Incident Reporting System, the only centralized and uniform collection of fire data in the United States. Regarding fire service training, Mr. President, and the National Fire Academy provides national leadership for fire and emergency medical services personnel through education and training. The Academy offers training and educational programs at the Emmitsburg campus and at other sites throughout the country. The Academy trained 83,000 students in 1996 and plans to increase this number to 300,000 per year in the future. There now are four applicants for each available slot for many of the Academy's courses. Finally, the USFA conducts research on technology to improve the occupational health and safety of firefighters including improvements to protective clothing and equipment, lifesaving operational technologies and equipment like liquid fire extinguishing agents, and equipment used in vehicle extrication and complex rescues. Mr. President, the efforts of our Nation's 1.2 million firefighters are invaluable; they risk their lives every day to save the lives and property of others. The USFA provides the necessary education, data analysis, training, and technology needed to ensure that these brave individuals do their job as efficiently and safely as possible. We in Congress need to do our job: We need to enact this legislation to ensure that both firefighters and the USFA get the financial resources they need to serve the public. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oceans Act of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators Stevens, Kerry, Snowe, Breaux, McCain, Inouye, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Lautenberg, Akaka, and Murkowski. Mr. President, plainly and simply, this bill calls for a plan of action for the 21st century to explore, protect, and use our oceans and coasts. This is not the first time we have faced the need for a national ocean policy. Three decades ago, our Nation roared into space, investing tens of billions of dollars to investigate the Moon and the Sea of Tranquility. During that golden era of science, some of us also recognized the importance of exploring the seas on our own planet. In 1966, Congress enacted the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act in order to define national objectives and programs with respect to the oceans. That legislation laid the foundation for U.S. ocean and coastal policy and programs and has guided their development for three decades. I was elected to the Senate just 3 months after the 1966 act was enacted into law, but I am pleased that both Senators Inouye and Kennedy, the two cosponsors of the 1966 act still serving in the Senate, have agreed to join me today in introducing the Oceans Act. One of the central elements of the 1966 act was establishment of a Presidential commission to develop a plan for national action in the oceans and atmosphere. Dr. Julius A. Stratton, a former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then-chairman of the Ford Foundation, led the Commission on an unprecedented, and since unrepeated, investigation of this Nation's relationship with the oceans and the atmosphere. The Stratton Commission and its congressional advisers--including Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Norris Cotton-- worked together in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, the Commission was established and carried out its mandate in the Democratic administration of Lyndon Johnson and saw its findings implemented by the Republicans under President Richard Nixon. With a staff of 35 people, the commissioners heard and consulted over 1,000 people, visited every coastal area of this country, and submitted some 126 recommendations in a 1969 report to Congress entitled ``Our Nation and the Sea.'' Those recommendations led directly to the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970, laid the groundwork for enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] in 1972, and established priorities for Federal ocean activities that have guided this Nation for almost 30 years. While the Stratton Commission performed its job with vision and integrity, the world has changed since 1966. Today, half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of our shores and more than 30 percent of the gross domestic product is generated in the coastal zone. Ocean and coastal resources once considered inexhaustible are severely depleted, and wetlands and other marine habitats are threatened by pollution and human activities. In addition, the U.S. regulatory and legal framework has developed over the years with the passage of a number of statutes in addition to CZMA. These include the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and the Oil Pollution Act. Finally, the United Nations has declared 1998 to be the International Year of the Ocean, focusing global attention on the state of the world's oceans. In short, it is time to reexamine our Nation's relationship to the sea. The Oceans Act is vital to the continued health of the oceans and prosperity of our coasts. It is patterned after and would replace the 1966 act. Like that act, it is comprised of three major elements: First, the bill calls for development and implementation of a coherent national ocean and coastal policy to conserve and sustainably use fisheries and other ocean and coastal resources, protect the marine environment and human safety, explore ocean frontiers, create marine technologies and economic opportunities, and preserve U.S. leadership on ocean and coastal issues. Second, the bill establishes a 15-member Commission, similar to the Stratton Commission, to examine ocean and coastal activities and report within 18 months on recommendations for a national policy. Commission members would be appointed by the President and the Congress. In developing its recommendations, the Commission would assess Federal programs and funding priorities, ocean-related infrastructure requirements, conflicts among marine users, and technological opportunities. The bill authorizes appropriations of $6 million over 2 years to support Commission activities. Third, the bill creates a high-level Federal interagency Council that is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and includes the heads of the Departments of Navy, State, Transportation, and the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the National Economic Council. This new Council will advise the President and serve as a forum for developing and implementing an ocean and coastal policy, will provide for coordination of Federal budgets and programs, and will work with non-Federal and international organizations. By establishing an action plan for ocean and coastal activities, the Oceans Act should contribute substantially to national goals and objectives in the areas of education and research, economic development, and public safety. With respect to education and research, our view of the oceans 30 years ago was based on a remarkably small amount of information. When Jack Kennedy was in the White House, we were just beginning to develop the capability for exploring the oceans, and the driving factor was the military need to hide our submarines from the Soviets during the cold war. What we knew of the oceans at that time was based as much on what fishermen brought up in their nets as it was on reliable scientific investigation. 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. Many of our marine research efforts could have profound impacts on our economic well-being. For example, research on coastal ocean currents and other processes that affect shoreline erosion is critical to effective management of the shoreline. Oceanographers are working with Federal, State, and local managers to use this new understanding in protecting beachfront property and the lives of those who reside and work in coastal communities. Development of underwater cameras and sonar, begun in the 1940's for the U.S. Navy, has led to major strides not only for military uses, but for marine archaeologists and scientists exploring unknown stretches of sea floor. Consumers have benefited from the technology now used in video cameras. Sonar has broad applications in both the military and commercial sector. Finally, marine biotechnology research is thought to be one of the greatest remaining technological and industrial frontiers. Among the opportunities which it may offer are to: restore and protect marine ecosystems; monitor human health and treat disease; increase food supplies through aquaculture; enhance seafood safety and quality; provide new types and sources of industrial materials and processes; and understand biological and geochemical processes in the world ocean. In addition to the economic opportunities offered by our marine research investment, traditional marine activities play an important role in our national economic outlook. Ninety-five percent of our international trade is shipped on the ocean and each year products valued at more than $220 billion are shipped within the United States via the water. In 1996, commercial fishermen in the United States landed almost 10 billion pounds of fish with a value of $3.5 billion. Their fishing-related activities contributed over $42 billion to the U.S. economy. During the same period, marine anglers contributed another $20 billion. Travel and tourism also contribute over $700 billion to our economy, much of which is generated in coastal areas. Last year, in South Carolina alone, the total impact of tourism in coastal areas was almost $6 billion. With a sound national ocean and coastal policy and effective marine resource management, these numbers have nowhere to go but up. With respect to public safety, it is particularly important to develop ocean and coastal priorities that reflect the changes we have seen in recent years. Before World War II, most of the U.S. shoreline was sparsely populated. There were long, wild stretches of coast, dotted with an occasional port city, fishing village, or sleepy resort. Most barrier islands had few residents or were uninhabited. After the war, people began pouring in, and coastal development began a period of explosive growth. In my State of South Carolina, our beaches attract millions of visitors every year, and more and more people are choosing to move to the coast--making the coastal counties the fastest growing ones in the State. Seventeen of the 20 fastest growing states in the Nation are coastal states--which compounds the situation that the most densely populated regions already border the ocean. With population growth comes the demand for highways, shopping centers, schools, and sewers that permanently alter the landscape. If people are to continue to live and work on the coast, we must do a better job of planning how we impact the very regions in which we all want to live. There is no better example of how our ocean and coastal policies affect public safety, than to look at the effects of hurricanes. Throughout the 1920's, hurricanes killed 2,122 Americans while causing about $1.8 billion in property damages. By contrast, in the first 5 years of the 1990's, hurricanes killed 111 Americans, and resulted in damages of about $35 billion. While we have made notable advances in early warning and evacuation systems to protect human lives, the risk of property loss continues to escalate and coastal inhabitants are more vulnerable to major storms than they ever have been. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo came ashore in South Carolina, leaving more than $6 billion in damages. Of that total from Hugo, the Federal Government paid out more than $2.8 billion in disaster assistance and more than $400 million from the National Flood Insurance Program. The payments from private insurance companies were equally staggering. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck southern Florida and slammed into low-lying areas of Louisiana, forever changing the lives of more than a quarter of a million people and causing an estimated $25 to $30 billion in damage. Hurricanes demonstrate that the human desire to live near the oceans and along the coast comes with both a responsibility and a cost. The oceans are part of our culture, part of our heritage, part of our economy, and part of our future. Therefore, we need to be smart about ocean policy--we need the best minds to come together and take a look at what the real challenges are. It is not enough to sit back and assume the role of caretakers. We must be proactive and develop a plan for the future. Mr. President, Members who doubt the need for this legislation need only pick up a newspaper and they will be face to face with pressing ocean and coastal issues: fish covered with lesions in the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina; a powerful El Nino brewing in the Pacific; condemnation of vacation homes as the beaches beneath them erode; U.S. ships held hostage over fishing disputes; and the list could go on. Deciding how to manage these problems and use the seas is one of the most complicated tasks we can tackle. There are no boundaries at sea, no national borders with fences and checkpoints. The resources of the sea are a common heritage, shared by all. While our coastal waters are governed by the United States for all of us, there are few rules on the high seas and progress relies primarily on international cooperation. The United Nations has declared 1998 to the be the Year of the Ocean. One reason for launching the International Year of the Ocean is to wake up the governments and the public so we pay adequate attention to the need to protect the marine environment and to ensure a healthy ocean. This is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate and enhance what has been accomplished in understanding and managing the ocean. The Stratton Commission stated in 1969: ``How fully and wisely the United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for food and raw materials, its position and influence in the world community, and the quality of the environment in which its people live.'' Those words are as true today as they were 30 years ago. Mr. President, it is time to look toward the next 30 years. This bill offers us the vision and understanding needed to establish sound ocean and coastal policies for the 21st century. I thank the cosponsors of the legislation for joining with me in recognizing its significance and trust that this body will work quickly to enact it into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that will grant permanent residency in the United States to Olga Gorgiladze. I serve as the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that has jurisdiction and oversight over both the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. I can tell you that with respect to Mrs. Gorgiladze's case--they have missed the mark. They have done this woman an injustice. It is a wrong that this Senate and this Congress should make right. Olga Gorgiladze's case is a special situation that involves the turmoil and changes that came with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In September 1991, Mrs. Gorgiladze came to the United States to stay with her lifelong friend, Merilyn Hodgson. Three months later the Soviet Union was dissolved and civil and ethnic war broke out in Georgia, the Soviet Republic where Mrs. Gorgiladze's husband was from. She applied for asylum in this country in March 1992. INS and the Executive Office of Immigration Review finally got to her case in late 1995 and turned down her request. They instructed Mrs. Gorgiladze to obtain Georgian citizenship and to leave for that country. The irony, of course, is that Olga Gorgiladze is not now and never has been a Georgian citizen. In fact, quite the contrary she fears for her safety should she be forced to go to that nation. She loves the United States. She loves our democratic society that protects freedom of speech and religion. Most importantly, she feels safe in a nation that has racial and ethnic diversity. The reality is that Olga Gorgiladze wants to become an American, not a Georgian citizen. Olga Gorgiladze is not even ethnically Georgian. She is half Chinese and half Russian. She was born in China in 1940 to a Russian father and a Chinese mother. Her father was a naval officer in the Tsarist navy and fought against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution. Her mother met Mrs. Gorgiladze's father in Shanghai where he had fled after the war. Olga grew up in China, speaking Chinese. But, once again in 1954, her family had to flee another violent Communist takeover--and her father moved the family back to the Soviet Union. They were sent to work on the undeveloped desert lands of Kazakhstan. In 1959, after her father died of cancer she was given permission by the Soviet authorities to move to Sukhami, Georgia, near the Russian border. In 1971, Olga graduated from the Teachers College of Foreign Languages where she majored in English. However, she was denied a teaching position because preference was given to Georgians. She finally got a job as a part-time teacher at the college from which she graduated, but was later fired when all classes for Russian speaking groups were terminated. Despite her advanced education--equivalent to a masters degree in this country--she has continually been forced to take low-paying clerk positions because of discrimination against her as a non-Georgian. Other discriminations displayed against her included housing which is controlled by the state and purchasing of food and supplies. Since 1991, the Caucasus nations have been plagued by ethnic strife and warfare. We have all watched the violence and bloodshed in the Abkhaszia region of Georgia, between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno- Karabakh, and the war in Chechneya. Less well televised is the hostility and persecution of outsiders and ethnic minorities. In Georgia, there is hostility to anything or anyone affiliated with Russia. As a woman who looks Chinese, speaks only Russian and English, Olga Gorgiladze has been subject to countless incidents of verbal, physical, and mental abuse. Mrs. Gorgiladze does not and cannot blend into the Georgian population. She has been beaten, spit on, verbally and physically abused. Her safety and livelihood have always felt threatened every minute of every day while living in Georgia. For example, while riding the bus, Mrs. Gorgiladze has been beaten and threatened with knifes, chains, and various other weapons. Her husband of 25 years, Malkhaz Gorgiladze, stayed in Georgia and warned Olga of the dangers posed to her if she returned to that country. He encouraged her to seek asylum in the United States and collected evidence for her hearing. He especially worked to document police inactivity and the Georgian officials' complicity in attacks on non-Georgians by violent nationalist groups. The police warned him to stop his efforts. Malkhaz Gorgiladze began to receive anonymous phone calls and threats and warnings to stop criticizing the police. In 1996, while returning home from a New Year's Eve gathering, his car was rammed by a Georgian police car and Olga's husband was killed. When asked by the immigration judges at Justice, our State Department reported that Georgia is in a state of cease-fire and everybody is getting along with each other. Further, the Justice Department conjectured that if the Georgian police wanted Olga's husband killed, the would have used means other than an auto accident involving a police car. The INS and immigration judges down there at the Justice Department have used this information and conclusions to deny Mrs. Gorgiladze's request for asylum. Yet, there were numerous letters and affidavits by witnesses regarding Malkhaz Gorgiladze's murder. And, in Georgia, the ultranationalists blame non-Georgians, and in particular blame Russians, for all their misfortunes and lack of economic development. Friends and relatives of Olga Gorgiladze have warned her that she should not return. They tell her that she will never be able to get a job and always will be an outcast. They say she will be considered a traitor. And, Malkhaz will not be there to try and defend her as in the past. In short, they fear for her safety, as do I. Mrs. Gorgiladze's case is truly heart-wrenching. And, here is a woman I might add--that has worked for the last 5 years at MCI Customer Service Representative International Department and turned around and paid her taxes to the State of Virginia and the U.S. Government. In my view, she has been an outstanding resident in our Nation who serves as an example of the American dream. She has never broken any law and has never been on welfare or asked the Government for handouts. She has followed the immigration rules every step of the way. She is what America is all about. What astonishes me is why the Justice Department would want to deport this 57-year-old woman. Mr. President, I have served in the U.S. Senate over 30 years. Every now and then we get an opportunity to stand up for someone who the Federal bureaucracy has mistreated. This is one of those times. Olga Gorgiladze's situation has touched me. Since her friend brought the case to my attention, I can't stop thinking about how unfair it seems. I've sat in Senate hearing after hearing on the Immigration and Naturalization Service asking why action is not taken to deport illegal aliens who got into this country through deception. I have listened to this administration try to explain how in 1996 they naturalized thousands of aliens with criminal backgrounds. And, I find it astonishing, these very same Justice immigration judges have ruled in separate cases that homosexuality per se does constitute a legitimate claim for asylum. But, in this case we have a woman who came to the United States legally, who is not and never has been a citizen of Georgia, who had her husband killed by Georgian authorities, who legitimately fears for her safety if sent there, who has complied with all the United States immigration laws, and who has paid her own way and has not been a burden to taxpayers in this country--and this is who the Justice Department wants to deny asylum and deport? Maybe I should forgo this bill and simply tell Olga to pretend that she is homosexual. This is injustice. This is just simply wrong. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today because the system is not working. I believe that Olga Gorgiladze has legitimate reasons to fear being deported to Georgia. She is not Georgian and does not belong in that country. It is ludicrous for the United States Government to be ordering her to apply for Georgian citizenship. What she has demonstrated is that she does belong in this country. In her case the system has failed and I think it is incumbent upon the United States Senate to put things right. I am pleased to sponsor this bill. I intend to work with the Judiciary Committee, with Senators Abraham, Kennedy, Hatch, and Leahy, to ensure that Mrs. Olga Gorgiladze is permitted to remain in the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I am proud to support the nomination of Ms. Sheila F. Anthony to serve as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]. The FTC is now functioning with only four Commissioners. Because of the Commission's myriad of responsibilities, it is imperative the agency operates with maximum participation of its designated Commissioners to ensure its efficiency. The primary duties of the Federal Trade Commission are: First, to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices, and second to ensure the operation of an efficient and competitive market-place. As part of its administrative responsibilities, the Commission administers a number of Federal statutes, including the Federal Trade Commission Act, which provides the Commission its consumer protection authority, and the Sherman, Clayton & Robinson-Patman antitrust statutes, as well as the Fair Credit Reporting, Fair Debt Collection Practices, and Truth in Lending Acts. A few of the Commission's specific duties include safeguarding the public from false advertisement of goods and services, telemarketing fraud, unfair pricing of products, unfair mergers and acquisitions, illegal boycotts, and other unfair methods of competition. Ms. Anthony's record reveals she is well qualified to serve as a Commissioner on the FTC. Her past experience includes serving as an Assistant Attorney General with the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as working as a private practice attorney on matters such as copyright, trademark, and antitrust. Ms. Anthony has stated she is ready to take on the many present challenges of the FTC. I look forward to working with her and urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oceans Act of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators Stevens, Kerry, Snowe, Breaux, McCain, Inouye, Kennedy, Boxer, Biden, Lautenberg, Akaka, and Murkowski. Mr. President, plainly and simply, this bill calls for a plan of action for the 21st century to explore, protect, and use our oceans and coasts. This is not the first time we have faced the need for a national ocean policy. Three decades ago, our Nation roared into space, investing tens of billions of dollars to investigate the Moon and the Sea of Tranquility. During that golden era of science, some of us also recognized the importance of exploring the seas on our own planet. In 1966, Congress enacted the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act in order to define national objectives and programs with respect to the oceans. That legislation laid the foundation for U.S. ocean and coastal policy and programs and has guided their development for three decades. I was elected to the Senate just 3 months after the 1966 act was enacted into law, but I am pleased that both Senators Inouye and Kennedy, the two cosponsors of the 1966 act still serving in the Senate, have agreed to join me today in introducing the Oceans Act. One of the central elements of the 1966 act was establishment of a Presidential commission to develop a plan for national action in the oceans and atmosphere. Dr. Julius A. Stratton, a former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then-chairman of the Ford Foundation, led the Commission on an unprecedented, and since unrepeated, investigation of this Nation's relationship with the oceans and the atmosphere. The Stratton Commission and its congressional advisers--including Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Norris Cotton-- worked together in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, the Commission was established and carried out its mandate in the Democratic administration of Lyndon Johnson and saw its findings implemented by the Republicans under President Richard Nixon. With a staff of 35 people, the commissioners heard and consulted over 1,000 people, visited every coastal area of this country, and submitted some 126 recommendations in a 1969 report to Congress entitled ``Our Nation and the Sea.'' Those recommendations led directly to the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1970, laid the groundwork for enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] in 1972, and established priorities for Federal ocean activities that have guided this Nation for almost 30 years. While the Stratton Commission performed its job with vision and integrity, the world has changed since 1966. Today, half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of our shores and more than 30 percent of the gross domestic product is generated in the coastal zone. Ocean and coastal resources once considered inexhaustible are severely depleted, and wetlands and other marine habitats are threatened by pollution and human activities. In addition, the U.S. regulatory and legal framework has developed over the years with the passage of a number of statutes in addition to CZMA. These include the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and the Oil Pollution Act. Finally, the United Nations has declared 1998 to be the International Year of the Ocean, focusing global attention on the state of the world's oceans. In short, it is time to reexamine our Nation's relationship to the sea. The Oceans Act is vital to the continued health of the oceans and prosperity of our coasts. It is patterned after and would replace the 1966 act. Like that act, it is comprised of three major elements: First, the bill calls for development and implementation of a coherent national ocean and coastal policy to conserve and sustainably use fisheries and other ocean and coastal resources, protect the marine environment and human safety, explore ocean frontiers, create marine technologies and economic opportunities, and preserve U.S. leadership on ocean and coastal issues. Second, the bill establishes a 15-member Commission, similar to the Stratton Commission, to examine ocean and coastal activities and report within 18 months on recommendations for a national policy. Commission members would be appointed by the President and the Congress. In developing its recommendations, the Commission would assess Federal programs and funding priorities, ocean-related infrastructure requirements, conflicts among marine users, and technological opportunities. The bill authorizes appropriations of $6 million over 2 years to support Commission activities. Third, the bill creates a high-level Federal interagency Council that is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and includes the heads of the Departments of Navy, State, Transportation, and the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the National Economic Council. This new Council will advise the President and serve as a forum for developing and implementing an ocean and coastal policy, will provide for coordination of Federal budgets and programs, and will work with non-Federal and international organizations. By establishing an action plan for ocean and coastal activities, the Oceans Act should contribute substantially to national goals and objectives in the areas of education and research, economic development, and public safety. With respect to education and research, our view of the oceans 30 years ago was based on a remarkably small amount of information. When Jack Kennedy was in the White House, we were just beginning to develop the capability for exploring the oceans, and the driving factor was the military need to hide our submarines from the Soviets during the cold war. What we knew of the oceans at that time was based as much on what fishermen brought up in their nets as it was on reliable scientific investigation. 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. Many of our marine research efforts could have profound impacts on our economic well-being. For example, research on coastal ocean currents and other processes that affect shoreline erosion is critical to effective management of the shoreline. Oceanographers are working with Federal, State, and local managers to use this new understanding in protecting beachfront property and the lives of those who reside and work in coastal communities. Development of underwater cameras and sonar, begun in the 1940's for the U.S. Navy, has led to major strides not only for military uses, but for marine archaeologists and scientists exploring unknown stretches of sea floor. Consumers have benefited from the technology now used in video cameras. Sonar has broad applications in both the military and commercial sector. Finally, marine biotechnology research is thought to be one of the greatest remaining technological and industrial frontiers. Among the opportunities which it may offer are to: restore and protect marine ecosystems; monitor human health and treat disease; increase food supplies through aquaculture; enhance seafood safety and quality; provide new types and sources of industrial materials and processes; and understand biological and geochemical processes in the world ocean. In addition to the economic opportunities offered by our marine research investment, traditional marine activities play an important role in our national economic outlook. Ninety-five percent of our international trade is shipped on the ocean and each year products valued at more than $220 billion are shipped within the United States via the water. In 1996, commercial fishermen in the United States landed almost 10 billion pounds of fish with a value of $3.5 billion. Their fishing-related activities contributed over $42 billion to the U.S. economy. During the same period, marine anglers contributed another $20 billion. Travel and tourism also contribute over $700 billion to our economy, much of which is generated in coastal areas. Last year, in South Carolina alone, the total impact of tourism in coastal areas was almost $6 billion. With a sound national ocean and coastal policy and effective marine resource management, these numbers have nowhere to go but up. With respect to public safety, it is particularly important to develop ocean and coastal priorities that reflect the changes we have seen in recent years. Before World War II, most of the U.S. shoreline was sparsely populated. There were long, wild stretches of coast, dotted with an occasional port city, fishing village, or sleepy resort. Most barrier islands had few residents or were uninhabited. After the war, people began pouring in, and coastal development began a period of explosive growth. In my State of South Carolina, our beaches attract millions of visitors every year, and more and more people are choosing to move to the coast--making the coastal counties the fastest growing ones in the State. Seventeen of the 20 fastest growing states in the Nation are coastal states--which compounds the situation that the most densely populated regions already border the ocean. With population growth comes the demand for highways, shopping centers, schools, and sewers that permanently alter the landscape. If people are to continue to live and work on the coast, we must do a better job of planning how we impact the very regions in which we all want to live. There is no better example of how our ocean and coastal policies affect public safety, than to look at the effects of hurricanes. Throughout the 1920's, hurricanes killed 2,122 Americans while causing about $1.8 billion in property damages. By contrast, in the first 5 years of the 1990's, hurricanes killed 111 Americans, and resulted in damages of about $35 billion. While we have made notable advances in early warning and evacuation systems to protect human lives, the risk of property loss continues to escalate and coastal inhabitants are more vulnerable to major storms than they ever have been. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo came ashore in South Carolina, leaving more than $6 billion in damages. Of that total from Hugo, the Federal Government paid out more than $2.8 billion in disaster assistance and more than $400 million from the National Flood Insurance Program. The payments from private insurance companies were equally staggering. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck southern Florida and slammed into low-lying areas of Louisiana, forever changing the lives of more than a quarter of a million people and causing an estimated $25 to $30 billion in damage. Hurricanes demonstrate that the human desire to live near the oceans and along the coast comes with both a responsibility and a cost. The oceans are part of our culture, part of our heritage, part of our economy, and part of our future. Therefore, we need to be smart about ocean policy--we need the best minds to come together and take a look at what the real challenges are. It is not enough to sit back and assume the role of caretakers. We must be proactive and develop a plan for the future. Mr. President, Members who doubt the need for this legislation need only pick up a newspaper and they will be face to face with pressing ocean and coastal issues: fish covered with lesions in the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina; a powerful El Nino brewing in the Pacific; condemnation of vacation homes as the beaches beneath them erode; U.S. ships held hostage over fishing disputes; and the list could go on. Deciding how to manage these problems and use the seas is one of the most complicated tasks we can tackle. There are no boundaries at sea, no national borders with fences and checkpoints. The resources of the sea are a common heritage, shared by all. While our coastal waters are governed by the United States for all of us, there are few rules on the high seas and progress relies primarily on international cooperation. The United Nations has declared 1998 to the be the Year of the Ocean. One reason for launching the International Year of the Ocean is to wake up the governments and the public so we pay adequate attention to the need to protect the marine environment and to ensure a healthy ocean. This is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate and enhance what has been accomplished in understanding and managing the ocean. The Stratton Commission stated in 1969: ``How fully and wisely the United States uses the sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for food and raw materials, its position and influence in the world community, and the quality of the environment in which its people live.'' Those words are as true today as they were 30 years ago. Mr. President, it is time to look toward the next 30 years. This bill offers us the vision and understanding needed to establish sound ocean and coastal policies for the 21st century. I thank the cosponsors of the legislation for joining with me in recognizing its significance and trust that this body will work quickly to enact it into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that will grant permanent residency in the United States to Olga Gorgiladze. I serve as the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that has jurisdiction and oversight over both the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Executive Office for Immigration Review. I can tell you that with respect to Mrs. Gorgiladze's case--they have missed the mark. They have done this woman an injustice. It is a wrong that this Senate and this Congress should make right. Olga Gorgiladze's case is a special situation that involves the turmoil and changes that came with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In September 1991, Mrs. Gorgiladze came to the United States to stay with her lifelong friend, Merilyn Hodgson. Three months later the Soviet Union was dissolved and civil and ethnic war broke out in Georgia, the Soviet Republic where Mrs. Gorgiladze's husband was from. She applied for asylum in this country in March 1992. INS and the Executive Office of Immigration Review finally got to her case in late 1995 and turned down her request. They instructed Mrs. Gorgiladze to obtain Georgian citizenship and to leave for that country. The irony, of course, is that Olga Gorgiladze is not now and never has been a Georgian citizen. In fact, quite the contrary she fears for her safety should she be forced to go to that nation. She loves the United States. She loves our democratic society that protects freedom of speech and religion. Most importantly, she feels safe in a nation that has racial and ethnic diversity. The reality is that Olga Gorgiladze wants to become an American, not a Georgian citizen. Olga Gorgiladze is not even ethnically Georgian. She is half Chinese and half Russian. She was born in China in 1940 to a Russian father and a Chinese mother. Her father was a naval officer in the Tsarist navy and fought against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution. Her mother met Mrs. Gorgiladze's father in Shanghai where he had fled after the war. Olga grew up in China, speaking Chinese. But, once again in 1954, her family had to flee another violent Communist takeover--and her father moved the family back to the Soviet Union. They were sent to work on the undeveloped desert lands of Kazakhstan. In 1959, after her father died of cancer she was given permission by the Soviet authorities to move to Sukhami, Georgia, near the Russian border. In 1971, Olga graduated from the Teachers College of Foreign Languages where she majored in English. However, she was denied a teaching position because preference was given to Georgians. She finally got a job as a part-time teacher at the college from which she graduated, but was later fired when all classes for Russian speaking groups were terminated. Despite her advanced education--equivalent to a masters degree in this country--she has continually been forced to take low-paying clerk positions because of discrimination against her as a non-Georgian. Other discriminations displayed against her included housing which is controlled by the state and purchasing of food and supplies. Since 1991, the Caucasus nations have been plagued by ethnic strife and warfare. We have all watched the violence and bloodshed in the Abkhaszia region of Georgia, between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno- Karabakh, and the war in Chechneya. Less well televised is the hostility and persecution of outsiders and ethnic minorities. In Georgia, there is hostility to anything or anyone affiliated with Russia. As a woman who looks Chinese, speaks only Russian and English, Olga Gorgiladze has been subject to countless incidents of verbal, physical, and mental abuse. Mrs. Gorgiladze does not and cannot blend into the Georgian population. She has been beaten, spit on, verbally and physically abused. Her safety and livelihood have always felt threatened every minute of every day while living in Georgia. For example, while riding the bus, Mrs. Gorgiladze has been beaten and threatened with knifes, chains, and various other weapons. Her husband of 25 years, Malkhaz Gorgiladze, stayed in Georgia and warned Olga of the dangers posed to her if she returned to that country. He encouraged her to seek asylum in the United States and collected evidence for her hearing. He especially worked to document police inactivity and the Georgian officials' complicity in attacks on non-Georgians by violent nationalist groups. The police warned him to stop his efforts. Malkhaz Gorgiladze began to receive anonymous phone calls and threats and warnings to stop criticizing the police. In 1996, while returning home from a New Year's Eve gathering, his car was rammed by a Georgian police car and Olga's husband was killed. When asked by the immigration judges at Justice, our State Department reported that Georgia is in a state of cease-fire and everybody is getting along with each other. Further, the Justice Department conjectured that if the Georgian police wanted Olga's husband killed, the would have used means other than an auto accident involving a police car. The INS and immigration judges down there at the Justice Department have used this information and conclusions to deny Mrs. Gorgiladze's request for asylum. Yet, there were numerous letters and affidavits by witnesses regarding Malkhaz Gorgiladze's murder. And, in Georgia, the ultranationalists blame non-Georgians, and in particular blame Russians, for all their misfortunes and lack of economic development. Friends and relatives of Olga Gorgiladze have warned her that she should not return. They tell her that she will never be able to get a job and always will be an outcast. They say she will be considered a traitor. And, Malkhaz will not be there to try and defend her as in the past. In short, they fear for her safety, as do I. Mrs. Gorgiladze's case is truly heart-wrenching. And, here is a woman I might add--that has worked for the last 5 years at MCI Customer Service Representative International Department and turned around and paid her taxes to the State of Virginia and the U.S. Government. In my view, she has been an outstanding resident in our Nation who serves as an example of the American dream. She has never broken any law and has never been on welfare or asked the Government for handouts. She has followed the immigration rules every step of the way. She is what America is all about. What astonishes me is why the Justice Department would want to deport this 57-year-old woman. Mr. President, I have served in the U.S. Senate over 30 years. Every now and then we get an opportunity to stand up for someone who the Federal bureaucracy has mistreated. This is one of those times. Olga Gorgiladze's situation has touched me. Since her friend brought the case to my attention, I can't stop thinking about how unfair it seems. I've sat in Senate hearing after hearing on the Immigration and Naturalization Service asking why action is not taken to deport illegal aliens who got into this country through deception. I have listened to this administration try to explain how in 1996 they naturalized thousands of aliens with criminal backgrounds. And, I find it astonishing, these very same Justice immigration judges have ruled in separate cases that homosexuality per se does constitute a legitimate claim for asylum. But, in this case we have a woman who came to the United States legally, who is not and never has been a citizen of Georgia, who had her husband killed by Georgian authorities, who legitimately fears for her safety if sent there, who has complied with all the United States immigration laws, and who has paid her own way and has not been a burden to taxpayers in this country--and this is who the Justice Department wants to deny asylum and deport? Maybe I should forgo this bill and simply tell Olga to pretend that she is homosexual. This is injustice. This is just simply wrong. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today because the system is not working. I believe that Olga Gorgiladze has legitimate reasons to fear being deported to Georgia. She is not Georgian and does not belong in that country. It is ludicrous for the United States Government to be ordering her to apply for Georgian citizenship. What she has demonstrated is that she does belong in this country. In her case the system has failed and I think it is incumbent upon the United States Senate to put things right. I am pleased to sponsor this bill. I intend to work with the Judiciary Committee, with Senators Abraham, Kennedy, Hatch, and Leahy, to ensure that Mrs. Olga Gorgiladze is permitted to remain in the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Harry Bell, a man well known to the people of South Carolina. We salute him as he retires in December as president of the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation. Harry Bell is known throughout the State as a successful farmer. With his son, William, he operates a productive, 1,450 acre farm in Saluda County, on which he raises cattle and plants soybeans, cotton, small grains, and strawberries. But Harry Bell's activities extend far beyond farming. He also is a savvy and successful businessman, with a long career in banking and insurance. In fact, he began his business career as a bank clerk, currently serves on the local board of First Citizens' Bank, and has been president of the Palmetto Casualty Insurance Co. and director of the Ridge Banking Co. But it is for his work with South Carolina farmers that Harry Bell is best known. He has served as president of the South Carolina Farm Bureau since 1971; in that time, he helped South Carolina farmers weather droughts, high interest rates, and the increasingly overwhelming competition of large-scale commercial farms. During his tenure as president, Harry helped preserve the State's heritage of family-owned farms, while at the same time assisting farmers to mechanize and modernize their operations. It is partly as a result of his efforts that agriculture remains a key component of South Carolina's economy. Harry Bell's involvement with agriculture has not been confined to the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation. He also was president of the Saluda County Farm Bureau Federation for 4 years, and was vice president of the American Farm Bureau Federation from 1986-94. From 1967-85, he was the farm representative on the South Carolina Water Resources Commission. Fortunately for us, Harry Bell has employed his prodigious talents and energies not just in the service of the farming community, but of the whole community. He must have filled his every waking moment with public service of one kind or another. He is active in his church, Johnston Presbyterian, having served as an elder and former deacon. He responded to another kind of call when his country summoned him to fight, serving on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from 1945-47 and from 1951-53. Additionally, he served in the Air Force Reserves until 1974, when he retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Harry Bell exemplifies the ideal of public service. His career has combined devotion to God, country, and community. Thanks to his stewardship, South Carolina farmers can look forward to many future harvests. It has been my good fortune to work with Harry Bell for over 20 years on important issues affecting the farmers and economy of our State. We in South Carolina are proud to call him our own, and I am honored to salute him today.