Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished leader, the Senator from West Virginia. He has really brought us a sobering reminder of the constitutional function of the National Congress. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution doesn't say the Supreme Court nor the Executive, but rather the Congress shall regulate foreign commerce. As Senator Byrd mentions protectionists, I remember the second inauguration of President Reagan in the Rotunda due to inclement weather. The distinguished President, taking that oath, pledged with hand raised and the other hand on the Bible, to preserve, protect and defend. Then we came back down and somehow got into a debate relative to trade and well, we were all protectionists. We have the Army to protect us from enemies without; the FBI to protect us from enemies within; we have Social Security to protect us from old age; Medicare to protect us from ill health. The very function of Government is to protect. What is really at issue here, not just fast track on Mercosur or Chile, but really the fact is that we as politicians, Republican and Democrat both, come in and say, before you open up Gregg manufacturing, you first must have clean air, clean water, minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closing notice, parental leave, safe machinery, safe working place. Oh, we all go around jumping up and down to make sure that we have safe and healthy remunerative employment in America. Then we come around, and when the industry in my backyard moves down to Mexico because labor costs just 58 cents an hour and industry has none of those requirements, they say, ``Free trade, free trade, free, free, free.'' There is nothing free. Cordell Hull said reciprocal free trade, competitive free trade. That has to be understood. We have to understand more particularly that the security and success of this Republic stands like on a three-legged stool. We have the one leg of the values we have as a Nation. That is unquestioned. For instance, we commit ourselves to try and bring about peace in the Mideast. Our Secretary of State continued to try just this past week. We commit our troops in Bosnia for peacekeeping. We have an ongoing ambassador there in Northern Ireland. Our values for freedom and the individual rights are unquestioned, and our second leg of military strength and power is unquestioned. That third leg, though, the economic leg, is somewhat fractured, intentionally --for the simple reason that we sacrificed our economy to keep the alliance together in the cold war. I was here in those days when we just sort of gave away unfettered access to American markets back in the 1950's, 1960's, right on up here until now. Today, however, there is a sobering of the American people. An overwhelming majority of the American people, according to the Business Week that has just come out, oppose fast track because they have had enough of this nonsense going on and on and on. Ten years ago we had 26 percent of our work force in manufacturing and we are down to 13 percent. We are not making things. Look at the business page of the Wall Street Journal, this morning. There is an article entitled--``Remember When Companies Actually Created Products.'' Now they don't make things. I can see Akio Morita, the former chairman of the board of Sony at a seminar in Chicago, IL, in the early 1980's, talking of Third World emerging nations, how they could become nation-states. He counseled, in order to become a nation-state, they had to have a strong manufacturing capacity. He finally pointed over toward me, and he said: ``And that world power that loses its manufacturing power will cease to be a world power.'' That is the global competition that this Congress has to wake up and listen to. It is competitive free trade. It is not just the environment. It is not just the labor rights. It is the overall picture of making agreements for the public good. Let me get right to just one point, one comment made by my distinguished leader from West Virginia reminds me now of the arrogance of power. As a young Governor back in 1961, I had negotiated a sort of policy with respect to textiles. In order to permit the President to promulgate a sort of textile trade policy, the law required that you had to find the item in question important to our national security. We coordinated five Secretaries--Labor, Commerce, State, Defense, and Agriculture. And after hearings, we found that textiles was, next to steel, the second most important. You could not send the troops to war in a Japanese uniform. I came over to the White House. There had been leaders in the Congress advocating the same kind of policy. For the first time I got an inkling of the White House staff. They do not look upon Congress as a friend. They look upon Congress as the adversary. They are always planning daily for their President to get around Congress or forget about Congress or thwart Congress. It is just a mindset. This was confirmed later. As a freshman Senator I was allowed to be on the policy committee. I was listening to the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas, Senator Fulbright, then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, talking about the arrogance of power, not just that we were trying to impose the American way the world around, but how we became involved in the war in Vietnam. Our wonderful friend, my hero of long time, Senator Dick Russell of Georgia, spoke up and said, ``Well, these Presidents and Vice Presidents travel the world around and make all kinds of commitments, and then come back here and give us the bill, and Congress is not even in on it, and we don't even know what it is, and we have to put the money up for it.'' He said, ``The Vice President has just gone around and promised a camel driver something.'' I remember it was when President Johnson was the President. Senator Mansfield, the majority leader, turned to Senator Russell and said, ``Write that up as a resolution, sort of a commitments resolution.'' And Senator Russell had emphysema, and he said, ``No. That's really for Senator Fulbright.'' Senator Fulbright did it. It did not get far because the stance taken by Senator Fulbright in those days was not popular. Later it was taken up by Senator Javits. We passed it. The President vetoed the commitments resolution, and we overrode the veto. The arrogance of power over at the White House. Now comes trade. We know you need not have any kind of fast track for complicated treaties and agreements. The Salt I treaty--I was here in that particular debate. We did not have fast track for that. The intermediate missile debate, more recently the Chemical Warfare Treaty, nobody said, fast track. But the business community is superimposed. They are the multinational policy of money, money, money. They do not have the responsibility of the economy. They have the responsibility of making money. They do not have to look out for that third leg that I spoke of. So having been up here with NAFTA, with an undemocratic agreement, that certainly has not worked. They said, ``We're going to add jobs.'' We have minus jobs. They said, ``We're going to have a surplus in the balance of trade,'' We went from plus $5 billion balance to minus $16 billion balance. They said NAFTA would solve other problems. Immigration has gotten worse. I can talk at length on these things. It was going to solve the drug problem. The drug problem got worse. But they are still trying, they put up the white tent and they got the country's rich to lobby. I have heard from constituents that the Business Roundtable has now written their members and said: $100,000 is your pledge to come up with. We have already got 60 percent performance. We are getting up a multimillion dollar kitty to bamboozle that Congress. Put up the white tent and go ahead and make another agreement. What really nettles the Senator from South Carolina is that while we cannot amend, they do. I will never forget, when I was first in the State legislature back in the 1940s, they had a Representative Keenan from Aiken County who kept running around: ``Big you and little me; big you and little me.'' Well, here I am almost 50 years later--``Big you and little me''--and what we have is just that, the President coming along and saying, ``Here is the agreement. Take it or leave it. And by the way, I will amend it in order to get sufficient votes.'' In NAFTA, let us have a little quick rollcall here. We had the orange juice commitment to get the Florida vote. I was talking to that crowd and had some votes, I thought, at one time because Castro was selling his citrus to Mexico and Mexico was selling their citrus to us. I was going to use that, but they made a commitment that it would not occur, in order to get the Florida vote. Textiles and apparel. I will never forget, I was amazed at one in my delegation--a few textile Senators were voting for it for the simple reason they promised more customs agents to cut out the over $5 billion of transshipments illegally coming into this country. Thousands of jobs; $1 billion is for 20,000 jobs; $5 billion is 100,000 jobs. So they gave in. The Canadian transportation subsidy of durum wheat. That got the Northwest and some fellows up there. And then the administration, the executive branch, worked on high fructose sugar. They picked up the Louisiana vote on that one. Then the snap back for winter vegetables. That was a California vote. Peanut butter for Georgia and wine for more Californians. Oh, they just went around. By the time I went around and tried to talk sense, the Congressman or the Senator was put in a position, ``Well, I'm against this fast track and I'm against this agreement, and ordinarily I would vote against the agreement, but I got this, and this happens to particularly pertain to my State, so I've got to go along.'' There were stricter rules of origin for beef imports, domestic appliances for Iowa. Mr. President, if you did not get in on this, I am giving a rollcall here so you can hurry up and get in on the deal. Additional purchases of C-17 military cargo. That was down in Texas. We had that vote that said, ``Oh, no, we're going to get more C-17's.'' So we lost that Congressman. And the Cross Border Development Bank-- there was a Congressman from California that got the Cross Border Development Bank. Worker retraining, urban development, a bridge in Houston, the Center for the Study of Trade. My friend Jake Pickle, he was gone. He got the Center for Trade. That was gone. They gathered some votes by scaling back a proposal regarding grazing fees on public lands. They even considered lowering the proposed increase in cigarette taxes to pick up some North Carolina votes. Flat glass for Michigan, helium, asparagus, pipe. Well, what you have, Mr. President, is just that, the use of patience in article I, section 8, of the Constitution. I will never forget George Washington's Farewell Address. He said: If in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the powers under the Constitution be in any particular wrong, let it be changed in the way that the Constitution designates. For while you are so patient you may in the one instance be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. What we are finding is the Executive with the arrogance of power coming in and superimposing the Business Roundtable, the white tent and the minions running around swapping off, wheeling and dealing, so that the people generally cannot be heard. It is a disgrace. It is the use of patience. And it is an endangerment to our country. Fast track. Chile. I said at the time of NAFTA I would agree with a free trade agreement with Chile. Chile had the entities of a free market--labor rights, due process, property rights. They had a concern for the environment, a respected judiciary. They had convicted the murderers of Letelier. Mexico had none of that. Our distinguished colleague from New York was saying, just bringing it into focus, saying ``how can you have free trade when you do not even have a free election?'' That is the difference between Chile and Mexico. Chile is the one country they have in mind, not the other members of the WTO. They do not need fast track to negotiate with Chile. But this is just their way of doing business so that they will not have to fool with the Congress. They make it a take it or leave it deal. And giving out the amendments--yes, the Executive can amend, but the Congress cannot. I say, bring on the treaty and let us vote it up or down. There could be an amendment on Chile for wine. We have to take care of that industry out on the west coast, some other things of that kind. But that isn't the way now of doing business here. What we come to do, which is outrageous in and of itself, is actually start back from the lowering of the deficits. Fiscal responsibility is gone. I will go over that because that is even more important--We passed the so-called spending increases and revenue decreases, spending increases and tax cuts, and running around all over the Halls of Congress calling ``Balance, balance, balance.'' In less than 2 weeks' time, on September 30, this particular fiscal year will terminate and the Congressional Budget Office, on page 35 of their recent report, says we will have a deficit not of $36 or $37 billion as they are trying to write about in the media but a deficit of $177 billion. Five years out, my distinguished friend, 5 years out, instead of a balanced budget agreement and a balanced budget law or reconciliation bill, we will have a deficit of $161 billion. During that 5-year period, add it up, those deficits, and the Government of the United States will spend an additional $1 trillion more than we take in. And all the time we are talking about balance. How can you spend $1 trillion more than you take in, and get to balance? Or how can you increase your spending and cut your revenues, at the same time, and say ``We are going to reduce the deficit and have balance?'' Obviously, you cannot. It is time we talk sense to the American people. As Adlai Stevenson used to say, ``Let's get the facts on top of the table.'' This fast track is a disgrace. It is in total disregard of the needs of the American people. They are out there competing. The productivity of the industrial work of the United States is at its highest. What is not competing is the Government here in Washington. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators McCain, Gorton, and Ford in introducing the Foreign Air Carrier Family Support Act, which will assign to foreign air carriers the statutory duty to provide support to the families of victims of aircraft accidents. Last month, 228 people died in the crash of Korean Air flight 801 in Guam. The United States, as a policy matter, has decided that our air carriers must be prepared to work with the families of victims. In fact, we require our carriers to file plans covering items like toll- free phone lines, notification of families of the accident, consultation on the disposition of the remains, and the return of family possessions. These changes came about following the crash of TWA flight 800 last July. It was clear, following the crash, that the families of the victims needed assistance, and in a coordinated way. The National Transportation Safety Board representatives worked night and day to let the families know what was going on, but the carriers, too, have a responsibility and those responsibilities, for U.S. carriers, were statutorily imposed. The bill today will make sure that foreign carriers like Korean Air will have similar responsibilities for crashes that occur in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators McCain, Gorton, and Ford in introducing the Foreign Air Carrier Family Support Act, which will assign to foreign air carriers the statutory duty to provide support to the families of victims of aircraft accidents. Last month, 228 people died in the crash of Korean Air flight 801 in Guam. The United States, as a policy matter, has decided that our air carriers must be prepared to work with the families of victims. In fact, we require our carriers to file plans covering items like toll- free phone lines, notification of families of the accident, consultation on the disposition of the remains, and the return of family possessions. These changes came about following the crash of TWA flight 800 last July. It was clear, following the crash, that the families of the victims needed assistance, and in a coordinated way. The National Transportation Safety Board representatives worked night and day to let the families know what was going on, but the carriers, too, have a responsibility and those responsibilities, for U.S. carriers, were statutorily imposed. The bill today will make sure that foreign carriers like Korean Air will have similar responsibilities for crashes that occur in the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let us cite that table. Here they have what they all like to call under the euphemism, a ``unified deficit.'' Here they just use the word ``deficit.'' They are very clever because they do not want to get in controversy with that particular section, 13:301. So CBO says: ``Deficit for 1997, $34 billion.'' This is what everybody is crowing about. But--but--Mr. President, trust fund surpluses. You see under the moneys there, and other changes, other short-falls there, that there is veritably $143 billion used, spent, in order to make the deficit appear to be only $34 billion. The truth is, and actually listed in this document now by CBO, is a deficit of $177 billion for fiscal 1997. And extrapolating it out for 1998, the actual deficit is $210 billion; 1999, $226 billion; the year 2000, $228 billion; the year 2001, $199 billion; and the year 2002, $161 billion. There you are, Mr. President. The Congressional Budget Office has not estimated a balanced budget. And no one else in his right mind has estimated a balanced budget except for the political dissembling over the land, in the editorial columns, and in the news reports, ``balance, balance, balance,'' because what they've got up here this consultant thing to get our ``message, message, message'' out. If you say it enough, they will believe anything. The truth is--the truth is--that we are going to expand the debt by over $1 trillion in the next 5 years, Mr. President. Now, let me say something about a soaring debt. When debt increases, interest increase. Everybody around here is saying, ``I'm cutting taxes, cutting taxes,'' when in essence they are increasing taxes. There are two kinds of taxes. One tax, of course, is like a school tax, where in my home State, South Carolina, all the sales tax goes to the public school system, or gasoline taxes which go to highway construction. Those are what you call win taxes--you win something for paying those taxes. The second kind of tax is the waste tax. An example of this is the interest costs on the national debt. You do not win anything. It is absolute waste. This goes up, up, and away to the tune now in the last several years, of at least $15 billion, and it is going up more every day. The actual estimated amount for this particular fiscal year which will end in a couple of weeks' time, at the end of September, is $358 billion. That is the CBO estimate. That is almost $1 billion a day for nothing. I ask unanimous consent that ``Hollings Budget Realities'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. When is this crowd going to wake up around here? The interest cost was less than $75 billion when Mr. Reagan came to town and promised to balance the budget in 1 year. We had less than $1 trillion debt. Now we have a $5.3 trillion debt--quadruple the debt since that time. We are spending about $283 billion more a year today in interest costs than that particular day 17 years ago. Now, if I had that $283 billion, I would get all the highways built, I would get all the research at NIH, I would put in all the money at Head Start. With all of these amendments, we are spending the money but not getting the government. We are proving with this cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes that we are incompetent up here. Now, Mr. President, I had hoped at that particular time, since the economy was going well and we have had lower deficits each year for the last 5 years under President Clinton, that we would stay the course, not have any tax cuts, not have any spending increases. But this hope was defeated. Instead, Mr. President, we passed what? We passed a $52 billion increase in spending and cut the revenues $95 billion and call it balanced. How can you increase spending, lower your revenues, and get to a balanced budget? Of course, it is obvious--you cannot. That is why you have the $177 billion deficit this particular fiscal year and instead of a balanced budget in the year 2002, we have a $161 billion deficit. Interestingly, this assumes that by the year 2000--you will have a deficit of $228 billion, an almost $70 billion decrease in a 2-year period. The cuts are back-loaded. That is the smoke and mirrors. Everyone is talking about balance, talking about baby boomers, talking about Social Security, which is in the black and balanced. But we are not paying for defense, we are not paying for education, we are not paying for Senators' pay, we are not paying for Head Start, we are not paying for foreign aid, we are not paying for the general Government expenses, and we come around here and we say, ``Now what we need is tax cuts to buy the election next year.'' Mr. President, they have a big hearing going on about campaign financing. The biggest campaign finance violation is the Federal budget scam of a balanced budget and cutting taxes. We are using this budget scam to reelect ourselves. This is what ought to be investigated. This is a public hearing. I hope C-SPAN is covering it. I hope everyone is listening right now, because this is how we buy the votes. I am not worried whether I get from a PAC contribution of $1,000 or $2,000 The country of Japan has over 100 lawyers here, paid over $113 million to lobby us, the Congress. I need not tell you that this is significantly more than the pay of the 535 Members of Congress. I am not worried about those things. What I am worried about is the campaign financing fraud scam that is going on on the floor of the national Congress. We're all running around here hollering, ``balance,'' and our good friends, the Concord Coalition, is yelling ``entitlements, entitlements.'' They have not yet faced the reality. My friend, David Broder, says I have gotten to be a nuisance on this subject. I wonder why the truth has become a nuisance in Washington?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the greatest difficulty I had during the August break was convincing the various newpaper editors I visited while traveling the State, that the budget was not balanced. Everywhere I went, they said that Congress had done its job, producing the first balanced budget since Lyndon Johnson's back in 1968-69. And I said that it was totally out of the whole cloth. Mr. President, I think of Mark Twain's famous observation. He said, ``The truth is such a precious thing, it should be used very sparingly.'' Unfortunately, our media friends have been caught up in the politics and with the consultants in the polls and the truth goes unreported. I stated this on the floor when we debated the conference report to the budget resolution. I referred at that particular time to the report of Mr. Kasich from the committee of conference, submitted on June 4, 1997. On page 4, I showed where, listed under ``Deficits,'' that under fiscal year 2002 a deficit of $108,300,000,000 was listed. It was listed with the exclusion of the Social Security surplus as required under section 13:301 of the Budget Act. Under that particular act that we passed in 1990, 98 Senators voted for it and President George Bush signed it into law. It said that you cannot report in the Congress nor shall the President submit a budget that includes the Social Security trust funds in the calculation of the budget deficit. We got this enacted into law, and today it is totally disregarded. I wish I could put in a criminal penalty. We could lock up the Congress. But the fact of the matter is, a criminal penalty for this already exists, the 1994 Pension Reform Act. This law was enacted to make sure that workers, with all this merger mania, could be sure that their pension funds would remain fiscally intact and safe from defraying company debt. Denny McLain, the famous Detroit pitcher, which the distinguished Chair should be very familiar with--is in jail today because he violated this law. Our great pitcher, McLain, was elected the chairman of a certain corporation where he used the pension fund to pay the debts. Earlier this year, Denny McLain was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Now, if you can find Denny, and what cell he is in, tell him he made a mistake. He should have run for the U.S. Senate instead of going into business, because instead of a prison term, what you get is a good Government award. The constant babble over the land in by all the talking heads, on the TV and the radio, is balance, balance, balance. Well, heavens above, this is exactly what is occurring today in the U.S. Senate. Even Mr. Kasich said that his submission was not a balanced budget. All you have to do is read and you will see the increase in the debt between the years 2001 and 2002. In 2002, instead of a balanced budget--you have a $173.9 billion deficit. So, I went to all the different newspaper editors, and I said, Wait until the Congressional Budget Office makes their estimate. It usually comes out in August but because of reconcilliation, it will come out in September this year. They finally submitted ``The Economic and Budget Outlook,'' in September 1997. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the table on page 34 be printed in the Record.

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. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, I am pleased to submit a resolution opposing a proposal by the Federal Trade Commission to allow the ``Made in the USA'' label to be applied by products that are not made in the United States. If the FTC's proposal were to take effect, it would result in misleading and inaccurate claims and could ultimately cause widespread deception and consumer confusion. Moreover, the FTC's proposal would encourage manufacturers to send U.S. jobs abroad. The FTC's recent proposal would reverse 50 years of precedent by the use of the ``Made in USA'' label even for products with as much as 25 percent or more, foreign labor or materials if they were substantially transformed in the United States. In some instances this could result in a product being labeled as ``Made in the USA'', even if all of the product's materials or components were made abroad. Under current rules, products can only be labeled as made in the USA. If all or virtually all of the products is made in the United States. This strict rule ensures that American consumers can rely on the assertions made by manufacturers, on U.S. made products. American consumers have come to rely on this label, as insurance that the components, materials, and labor used to make the product are from the United States. To change the standard would invite confusion and undermine the value of the made in the USA label. The FTC's proposal is opposed by many of the country's leading consumer groups, including the National Consumer's League, the National Council of Senior Citizens, and Citizen Action. Moreover, many leading manufacturers, agriculture groups, and labor unions oppose changes to the current standard. In my State of South Carolina one of our pre- eminent manufactures, Nucor Steel Corp., is among the corporations opposed to the FTC changes. In addition, by permitting manufacturers to mislabel their products, the FTC is encouraging American employers to transfer manufacturing of components or materials abroad. Because consumers prefer products made in the United States, the ``Made in USA'' label is strong incentive for manufacturers to keep jobs in the United States. By permitting manufacturers to shift manufacturing abroad where they can pay lower wages and still maintain the benefits of labeling products as made in the USA, the FTC is explicitly encouraging the transfer of jobs abroad.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Joab Lesesne, a great educator and South Carolinian. Dr. Lesesne recently celebrated his 25th year as president of Wofford College, a small Methodist-affiliated school, which has become one of the finest small liberal arts schools in the Nation. Its successful evolution is largely due to Dr. Lesesne who first arrived at Wofford 33 years ago as an assistant professor of history. Prior to his post at Wofford, he taught history at Coastal Carolina, part of the University of South Carolina system. Three years after his arrival at the college, Dr. Lesesne was appointed assistant dean. While in this position, he implemented a visionary interim program during the 1967-68 academic year which continues today. Through this program, students are able to devote themselves to one particular subject for several hours a day for an entire month. The projects range from the study of modern Irish poetry to kayaking down the Rio Grande. The program has contributed to the school's success in turning out well-rounded students with broad interests. In 1969, Dr. Lesesne was appointed director of development, a position he held for a year before being named dean of the college. After serving as dean from 1970-1972, Dr. Lesesne continued his ascension and was elected president of the college. Today, under his guidance, Wofford continues to break new ground, both locally and nationally. In 1975, the Wofford Board of Trustees approved full co-education, and the college began admitting women as resident students for the first time in its history. They now comprise approximately 45 percent of the student body. Throughout the Lesesne presidency, Wofford has grown exponentially in its endowments and its campus facilities. Additions include the Campus Life Building, which marked the college's 125th anniversary in 1979, a new residence hall, and the Franklin Olin Building, one of the largest gifts ever made by the prestigious F.W. Olin Foundation. The campus's hospitable setting led the Carolina Panthers to choose Wofford as their summer training camp. Wofford consistently receives national recognition for its leadership in liberal arts education. It is consistently ranked as one of the ``best buys'' in liberal arts education and recently,a survey showed it to be the national leader in the percentage of students earning academic credits outside the United States through travel or study abroad programs. Furthermore, its academic excellence is complemented by fiscal responsibility. The Lesesne presidency has an enviable record of balanced budgets, tuition well below the national average for Phi Beta Kappa independent colleges, and overall good management. Dr. Lesesne's record of distinction does not end with Wofford. In 1991, he was chosen as the Citizen of the Year by the Spartanburg Kiwanis Club and, in subsequent years, has received numerous awards from the local and statewide Chambers of Commerce. Additionally, he serves on many boards representing industry, banking, commerce, and education. He is past Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, the first southerner ever to hold the post, and is a former president of the Southern University Conference, and former President of the National Association of Schools and Colleges of the United Methodist Church. Additionally, Dr. Lesesne is a retired major general in the South Carolina Army National Guard. Dr. Lesesne's tenure at Wofford, the longest of any college president in the State, exemplifies the virtues of fortitude and loyalty. Under his steady hand, the school sails forward, faithfully serving its pupils and the community. Joe, in the roles of educator and administrator, is a public servant of the highest order. All of us in South Carolina are proud to call him our own.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the President's nomination of a new Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], Ms. Jane Garvey. We have waited several months for this nomination, and I want to thank my distinguished colleague and Chairman, Senator McCain, for bringing Ms. Garvey's nomination up for a vote so expeditiously. I want to point out Ms. Garvey's impressive public service record. She has held several important positions with both State and Federal Governments. I find it encouraging to find someone with Ms. Garvey's leadership capabilities dedicating her career to public service. All too often society's best and brightest leave public service for more lucrative pursuits. But with Ms. Garvey, we have one of the best making a significant contribution for the good of the public. I applaud Ms. Garvey for that. Ms. Garvey comes to us after receiving high marks for her work as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. During her tenure, Ms. Garvey has demonstrated that she is an impressive leader. This nation deserves a nominee like Ms. Garvey to lead the FAA. The FAA's job is to safely operate the national air system. When it comes to safety, there is always room for improvement. Improving the system is a monumental task, and Ms. Garvey certainly has her work cut out for her. The FAA also plays an important role in developing and promoting airport development. Airport development is a critical component in promoting the growth of aviation. In my home state of South Carolina, the economic impact of aviation statewide is more than $3 billion. The travel and tourism industry is the State's second largest employer. Without modern airports, the economy in South Carolina--and in every other state--suffers. Infrastructure development fuels travel and tourism and enables communities to attract new business to all of South Carolina. Because of Ms. Garvey's extensive background at the highway department, I expect she will bring creativity and ingenuity to the Airport Improvement Program. The program is a critical component of our nation's transportation infrastructure, and I am enthusiastic about Ms. Garvey's ability to manage this program well. I want to conclude by commending the people at the FAA. All day, every day, they ensure that millions of Americans reach their destinations safely. But the system needs to be modernized, and it needs to be done well. I look forward to working with Ms. Garvey and Secretary of Transportation Slater over the next several years, as we move toward improving the safety of our entire transportation network. I urge my colleagues to approve Ms. Garvey as Administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I submit the following views in dissent to the provisions contained in title III, Communications and Spectrum Allocation Provisions of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997. As a subconferee on title III, I stand in opposition to the provisions adopted by the subconference, and ultimately, the Congress. These provisions are a classic example of the charade that is being perpetuated on the American public under the guise of balancing the budget. The administration and the congressional leadership have devised a plan that turns sound communications policy on its head. The final product actually represents the first time the Administration and Budget Committees admit that their original assessments on spectrum auctions were unrealistic. Their admission is reflected in the fact that, also for the first time, universal service funds will be used to make up the shortfall in the auctions in order to balance the budget. Unfortunately, the price that we will pay for their recognizing the error of their ways, will result in higher phone rates for rural America. Title III contains dramatic changes to long-standing communications policy. There were many policy changes made that I do not support and deserve greater discussion. But for purposes of this statement, I will only discuss the following three issues: First, for the first time, the U.S. budget will be balanced by raiding the universal service fund. This is one of the most blatant budget gimmicks to plug a shortfall as I have ever seen. The bill language as provided to the Budget Committee actually had a blank line for the dollar amount to be filled in at some later point. In the end, the universal service plug was $3 billion. It is not quite clear how the language will actually work--if it works at all. It clearly imposes a financial burden on the telephone companies in an effort to float an interest free loan to the Government. In essence, we are asking small telephone companies to make do without the financial support they rely on every month and may force these companies to raise rates. Second, the deal struck by the administration and the congressional leadership requires the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to auction broadcast licenses. This is a fundamental change to our long- held policy that broadcasters are licensed to serve the public interest. The Congress and the FCC impose special public interest obligations on broadcasters and that is why broadcasters were exempted from auctions under the original auction authority. But now we need money to pay the bills and so the conference has selectively targeted a group of pending broadcast licenses to be assigned by competitive bidding, not by comparative hearings. These applicants had no notice and no opportunity to challenge this change in policy. All of the pending applicants sought these licenses with the expectancy of comparative hearings. Now we have budget folks coming in here and telling us that budget policy is more important than communications policy. Along these same lines, the deal eliminates the FCC's ability to use lotteries as an assignment process, except in the case of assigning public broadcast licenses. Here, we preserved the FCC's authority to use comparative hearings to assign these licenses. I urge the FCC to develop appropriate criteria to assign these licenses. The local communities deserve the right to have qualified public broadcast licensees. Public broadcasting is too important to leave to random chance. Third, the last point I want to make relates to the change made to the local ownership rules under the guise of increasing the pool of bidders for the analog auction. The deal waives the FCC's rules on duopoly and newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership for the purpose of allowing these parties to bid on the analog return spectrum in 2001. Subsection 3003(D) of the reconciliation conference report violates Section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Budget Act, also known as the ``Byrd Rule.'' These provisions are in violation of the Byrd Rule because: First, the inclusion of these provisions has no revenue impact as indicated by CBO letter dated July 14, 1997; Second these provisions fail to qualify as a necessary term and condition for the purposes of conducting the auction; third these provisions selectively benefit one competitor over another by maintaining other ownership limitations; and fourth these provisions represent substantive policy changes to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and can be achieved by the free-standing pieces of legislation already introduced in the House and Senate. Here, subsection 3003(D) is applicable only in cities with populations greater than 400,000 as measured by the 1990 decennial census. For purposes of determining cities with populations in excess of 400,000, the FCC should refer to the April 1, 1990 Decennial Census, as referenced in PPL-27 Table 3, Resident Population for Cities with Population Greater than 100,000 Sorted by Population Rank. The FCC should take note that this is the first time the Congress has directed the FCC to issue a blanket waiver of these two rules and established a statutory threshold that relief is only permissible in these specified markets; and furthermore, the relief is only justified when there is an increase in the number of broadcast outlets in the large markets. The legislative history supports this position. The House provision established a blanket waiver of these provisions for all markets. The final provision provides for relief only in cities with populations greater than 400,000. In contrast to the general review of the duopoly rule required under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Congress here has spoken clearly that media concentration is not warranted at this time, particularly in cities with populations less than 400,000, and should only be allowed when there is a possible increase in the number of broadcast outlets. Here that increase in the number of broadcast outlets is anticipated at the end of the digital TV transition when the FCC will auction off the returned analog spectrum. It is important to note that repeal of these two rules represents a drastic change in policy. For years, the policy has been to preserve diversity and sources of information. In particular, a merger between a daily newspaper and a broadcast station will reduce the independent sources of news in the community. The budget deal's elimination of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule exacerbates the growing recent problem of media concentration because even in large metropolitan areas there is often only one major daily newspaper. In such a community, that newspaper may be the only major source of non-broadcast local news and information. With a city's only newspaper aligned with major broadcast stations, a great deal of power and influence is held by a few individuals at the expense of the needs of the community. For example, the October 23, 1995, edition of Electronic Media reports examples of newspaper/broadcast cross ownership situations where critical information for the community was stifled because of the lack of independence by the news outlets. For example, during a particularly contentious strike at the major newspaper in Detroit, the cross-owned tv and radio stations were forbidden to air stories about the strike. In addition, a broadcast story about cheating by automotive repair shops was canceled because of potential loss of advertising revenues at the cross-owned newspaper. A company that owns a broadcast station and a newspaper would likely combine its news departments in order to achieve economies of scale. The problem though is not an economic one, but one of information and diversity of views. Such combinations reduce the diversity of sources of local news and public affairs in that community. I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill aimed at correcting a mistake in the Coastal Barrier Resource System. Without this correction, a portion of Colleton County, SC, will remain in the Coastal Barrier Resources System even though the county never had an opportunity to voice their objection to their inclusion. In 1980 Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to study and propose a Coastal Barrier Resources System. The aim was to create a system made up of relatively undeveloped low-lying coastal lands which, because of their susceptibility to flooding, would not be eligible for Federal flood insurance. Practically speaking, to be included in the CBRS means you face serious obstacles when selling or developing your property. Soon after the passage of the 1980 act, the Department of the Interior created a study group charged which promulgating an inventory of coastal properties--properties to be included in the CBRS. By the end of 1988, the study group had completed its work and the Department of the Interior submitted the CBRS proposal to Congress. This proposed inventory was the culmination of 8 years work and included suggestions made during two public comment periods. The first public comments were made following the release of an initial draft inventory in 1985. Additional comments were made following the release of a second draft in the spring of 1987. The Department of the Interior received numerous comments on these draft inventories and incorporated many in their final report to Congress. This final report was the basis for the Coastal Barrier Resources System adopted in 1990. I recite this history because without an understanding of it, Mr. President, one can't understand the intent of my legislation. While the Department of the Interior was drafting this proposed system, a strip of coastal South Carolina was being annexed by Colleton County from Charleston County. Unfortunately, this annexation occurred in 1987 in the midst of the 1987 CBRA comment period. Unfortunately, the notice of this second draft inventory was not received by Colleton County. The county never received any notice. It appears the draft inventory was provided to Charleston County, not Colleton County. In fact, the maps currently on file at the Department of the Interior, still, incorrectly show this tract in Charleston County--not Colleton County. Thus, the citizens of Colleton County, never having had an opportunity to comment on these proposed changes, now find this tract included in the CBRS. I proposed legislation in 1995 to correct this mistake, but it was never reported out of committee. It failed to win the Environment and Public Works Committee's support because the Fish and Wildlife Service, at the time, felt that the area in question had been mapped properly. Mr. President, since the end of the 104th Congress, I have been working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to address this problem. They have now reevaluated this area and have come to the conclusion, ``that the unprecedented procedural circumstances in this situation raise concerns of equity and fairness that warrant remapping.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from John Rogers, Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated May 1, 1997, that says just that. In short, this bill corrects a mistake made 10 years ago. It rights a wrong. It does not drastically redraft the Coastal Barrier Resources System nor does it withdraw any lands which were included in the 1982 draft. It is narrowly drafted to address Colleton County's unique situation. My staff, working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, has not identified another area in the system which is similarly situated. That is, there are no other areas which changed jurisdictions at the time the Coastal Barrier Resources System boundaries were being developed and which never received notice of these changes, thus this bill would not prove a precedent for those seeking wholesale changes in the Coastal Barrier Resources System. In conclusion, the bill simply returns a small portion of Edisto Island, SC to its 1982 status. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill aimed at correcting a mistake in the Coastal Barrier Resource System. Without this correction, a portion of Colleton County, SC, will remain in the Coastal Barrier Resources System even though the county never had an opportunity to voice their objection to their inclusion. In 1980 Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to study and propose a Coastal Barrier Resources System. The aim was to create a system made up of relatively undeveloped low-lying coastal lands which, because of their susceptibility to flooding, would not be eligible for Federal flood insurance. Practically speaking, to be included in the CBRS means you face serious obstacles when selling or developing your property. Soon after the passage of the 1980 act, the Department of the Interior created a study group charged which promulgating an inventory of coastal properties--properties to be included in the CBRS. By the end of 1988, the study group had completed its work and the Department of the Interior submitted the CBRS proposal to Congress. This proposed inventory was the culmination of 8 years work and included suggestions made during two public comment periods. The first public comments were made following the release of an initial draft inventory in 1985. Additional comments were made following the release of a second draft in the spring of 1987. The Department of the Interior received numerous comments on these draft inventories and incorporated many in their final report to Congress. This final report was the basis for the Coastal Barrier Resources System adopted in 1990. I recite this history because without an understanding of it, Mr. President, one can't understand the intent of my legislation. While the Department of the Interior was drafting this proposed system, a strip of coastal South Carolina was being annexed by Colleton County from Charleston County. Unfortunately, this annexation occurred in 1987 in the midst of the 1987 CBRA comment period. Unfortunately, the notice of this second draft inventory was not received by Colleton County. The county never received any notice. It appears the draft inventory was provided to Charleston County, not Colleton County. In fact, the maps currently on file at the Department of the Interior, still, incorrectly show this tract in Charleston County--not Colleton County. Thus, the citizens of Colleton County, never having had an opportunity to comment on these proposed changes, now find this tract included in the CBRS. I proposed legislation in 1995 to correct this mistake, but it was never reported out of committee. It failed to win the Environment and Public Works Committee's support because the Fish and Wildlife Service, at the time, felt that the area in question had been mapped properly. Mr. President, since the end of the 104th Congress, I have been working with the Fish and Wildlife Service to address this problem. They have now reevaluated this area and have come to the conclusion, ``that the unprecedented procedural circumstances in this situation raise concerns of equity and fairness that warrant remapping.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from John Rogers, Acting Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dated May 1, 1997, that says just that. In short, this bill corrects a mistake made 10 years ago. It rights a wrong. It does not drastically redraft the Coastal Barrier Resources System nor does it withdraw any lands which were included in the 1982 draft. It is narrowly drafted to address Colleton County's unique situation. My staff, working with the Fish and Wildlife Service, has not identified another area in the system which is similarly situated. That is, there are no other areas which changed jurisdictions at the time the Coastal Barrier Resources System boundaries were being developed and which never received notice of these changes, thus this bill would not prove a precedent for those seeking wholesale changes in the Coastal Barrier Resources System. In conclusion, the bill simply returns a small portion of Edisto Island, SC to its 1982 status. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr President, I rise today in support of passage of S. 910, a bill to reauthorize appropriations for the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act. Catastrophic earthquakes are inevitable in the United States. Scientists consider California to be the most likely location for major earthquakes; however, all or parts of 39 states--populated by more than 70 million people--have been classified as having major or moderate seismic risk. Earthquakes are not uncommon in Alaska, Idaho, Utah, and Nevada. Major earthquakes east of the Rockies are infrequent but can prove devastating. In 1811-12, three huge earthquakes rocked the New Madrid area of Missouri, near St. Louis and Memphis. These earthquakes were so powerful that they changed the course of the Mississippi River and rang bells in Boston. In 1886, an earthquake leveled my hometown of Charleston. Estimates of the strength of the Charleston quake range from 7.0 to 7.6 on the Richter Scale. Of particular interest and concern about the east coast quakes is that there is no known geological origin for them. This fact underscores the possibility of unpredictable seismic activity in the United States. What we do know, though, is that the loss of life and property from earthquakes can be considerable. For example, the January 17, 1994, earthquake at Northridge, CA, was classified as only ``moderate'' in magnitude. Nonetheless, 57 people died, and injuries totaled over 6,500. In addition, insurance payments for this moderate event were over $6 billion, and the Federal supplemental appropriation totaled another $9 billion. The Northridge has become the second most expensive natural disaster in American history, exceeded only by Hurricane Andrew. Reducing damage from earthquakes would not only save lives but also save both private insurers and the Federal Government considerable amounts of money. That is what NEHRP, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, established by the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, is designed to do. It is a Federal interagency program designed to help minimize the loss of life and property caused by earthquakes. It supports scientific research on the origins of earthquakes, and funds engineering research to make buildings and other structures more seismically resistant. NEHRP also disseminates this technical information to the states, and helps states and localities prepare for earthquakes. NEHRP focuses on helping states prepare for earthquakes, in contrast to Federal disaster response programs that help states after a major event. The Northridge earthquake illustrates both NEHRP's accomplishments and what some observers believe are continuing problems. The most important accomplishment was the survival of most of the buildings and highway overpasses which were built to meet new seismic codes or retrofitted to meet those codes. For example, highway bridges designed using standards developed after the late 1970s performed very well. The most dramatic story concerns the retrofit of older highway overpasses. After the Loma Prieta earthquake in Northern California in 1989, university researchers and Federal engineers, using NEHRP funds, undertook a crash program to develop new ways to retrofit older highway bridges and began applying those retrofit techniques to overpasses in Southern California. At Northridge, six major highway bridges collapsed. While further study is needed, it appears that the older overpasses that were retrofitted survived, while those that did not often failed. Northridge also illustrated some continuing problems such as the strength of ``lifelines''--water line, natural gas pipelines, electrical lines, and so forth. Little research has been done to date on how to make these facilities more earthquake-resistant. Dramatic film from Northridge showed flooded streets with shooting jets of burning natural gas and illustrated how easily these lines are broken. Mr. President, S. 910 will authorize the funding needed to continue the good work that has been done by the four participating agencies in NEHRP--the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology--and will allow them to address problems like ruptured lifelines that continue to plague disaster response teams. This bill also will require new assessments of our seismic hazard warning systems, and our earthquake emergency training facilities to ensure that the warning systems and training facilities are up to date, properly operating, and responsive. In assessing the current conditions of the seismic monitoring networks, the agencies are expected to pay greater attention to understudied areas like the eastern seaboard where catastrophic seismic events have occurred in the past, and are predicted to occur in the future--yet are more difficult to understand. This is a good bill. I commend the Senator from Tennessee for his diligence in this area, and I encourage my colleagues to support passage of this measure today. Amendment No. 1054 (Purpose: To increase the authorization for the United States Geological Survey for 1998 and 1999.)

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Fortunately--and we are all enthused about it--the deficit is going to come down to about $140 billion this year. It may come down to $135 billion, but I doubt that. I have talked to the authorities. But we know we are spending over $100 billion more than we are taking in. We cannot, under the law, use Social Security trust fund surpluses to mask this deficit. The Senate voted on October 18, 1990, by a vote of 98-2, to take Social Security off budget. It took us quite a while in the Budget Committee, but we finally got it done. That is a law, section 13301, signed by President Bush, to take Social Security off budget. So, this was a very deliberate act. I am not just trying to impassion senior citizens or any of that nonsense. I am trying to inflame the intellects and the consciences of the Senators. Because every Senator present here today who was here in 1990, voted and said, I believe in that particular policy. No Senator since 1990 has tried to change that; there has been no amendment or bill or otherwise. We had the policy itself reaffirmed in the Retirement Protection Act of 1994 which barred businesses from using the pension moneys to pay the debt. Then, the Senate passed an amendment in the budget bill, barring corporations from pension misuse, known as the Pension Reform Act of 1994. Madam President, when I look at this particular budget, I say how in the world, if you are spending over $100 billion more than you are taking in, can you remove the deficit by increasing spending and decreasing revenues? It is quite obvious it cannot be done, except under subterfuge, misuse, misappropriation or other fraudulent acts. Because the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 --and we have examined the document now--uses $465 billion of Social Security trust funds to make it appear balanced. There is no gimmickry here about Government moneys and buying bonds. When you spend the money out of the fund--and that is what we are doing because we don't have it--then it has to be replaced. Under the chart I included earlier, you can see that over $600 billion from the Social Security trust fund has already been expended, and now they will spend an additional $465 billion in this bill. This means that by the year 2002 we will owe Social Security over $1 trillion. They say, ``Oh, it's the baby boomers in the next generation that are going to bankrupt Social Security.'' No, not at all, my colleagues. It is the senior citizens, the adults on the floor of the U.S. Congress that are decimating Social Security. It is going on. It continues to go on. It is absolutely fraudulent. It is absolutely illegal. I ask unanimous consent to have section 13301 printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I have spoken with the distinguished chairman of our Budget Committee. He has allocated 20 minutes. I think I will take far less. Madam President, when Alice in Wonderland asked the cat where they were headed, the cat replied, ``before you decide where you are going, you must first decide where you are.'' And as we look at this so-called Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we should look to see, before anything is enacted, exactly where we are. At this very minute, we have a pretty good estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. We know, Madam President, that as of May 19, CBO estimated the deficit for this year, 1997, to be $180 billion. We also know that both the CBO and the Office of Management and Budget have agreed that this year's revenues are now exceeding their original estimates by as much as $40 billion. So, the August estimate for 1997 will be revised to show a deficit of about $140 billion. The idea is to balance the budget and remove the deficit. If you are going to remove your deficit, you have to do it one of two ways--or both ways; namely, you have to cut back on your spending and you have to increase your revenues or do both. The present Balanced Budget Act of 1997 proposed increases in spending, rather than cuts in spending. And, instead of increasing the revenues, it reduces revenues by some $90 billion. So, Madam President, I have studied this document, and I have to stand here as a matter of conscience, because I have been the chairman of the Budget Committee. I have been in the committee itself since its institution in 1974. I cannot mislead the people with a vote that would approve what this budget resolution is all about. I could go at length as to the various smoke and mirrors, backloading, excessive spectrum auctions and other deceptions contained in this bill, but let me go to one that is not just a simple smoke or a simple mirror. The fact of the matter is, it is an illegal smoke and an illegal mirror. Why do I say that? We had some struggle during the original enactment of the Greenspan Commission report in 1983. Social Security was about to go broke, but its bankruptcy was avoided by the National Commission on Social Security Reform. I hold a section of the report, dated January 1983, in my hand. Section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report recommended taking Social Security off budget. That is the core of the misunderstanding-- or the understanding. We stated categorically, in accordance with the Greenspan Commission, that when we were calculating deficits, whether or not we were in the red or in the black, that we would not include Social Security trust funds. I ask unanimous consent at this point to have printed in the Record a table of the various pension fund moneys that have been expended and, so there will be no misunderstanding, I would also like to include the ``Budget Reality'' table that I referred to earlier which contains the CBO figure of a $180 billion actual deficit this year.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, on line 1 it says, ``fiscal year 2002''; line 2, subsection 4, it says ``deficit.'' Then you look down on line 8 at ``fiscal year 2002,'' and you will not see a balance, but a deficit of $108,300,000,000. The reason it shows this deficit is because of section 13301, which says you cannot include Social Security trust fund surpluses. But, if you go down to line 15 and see that the fiscal year debt, from year 2001 to 2002, goes up, not into balance. The debt doesn't go into balance from the year 2001 to 2002. Instead, the debt increases $173.9 billion. This is not a balanced budget. It's a tragic thing that you can't get this reported. It is a matter of fact. It is a matter of law. It is a matter of conscience. We should all come together and say we won't use pension funds to pay off our debt. We passed a formal rule here some time ago for all corporate America which made this illegal. Denny McLain, the Cy Young Award winning pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, when he got out of baseball, became the head of a corporation, and, unfortunately, used the corporate pension fund to pay off the debt. He was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Tell our friend Denny, if you can catch him in whatever prison, to please run for the U.S. Senate because, rather than sending us off to prison here when we use the pension funds to make the debt look smaller, we get the Good Government Award. Everybody is standing up with the President and the Speaker and the majority leader and saying, ``How wonderful, boys. It is Christmas in July.'' It is a total fraud, absolute farce, and everybody ought to know it. Because what we are doing is breaking into the airport trust fund, the highway trust fund, the military retirees' pensions, the Civil Service retirees' pensions, and everything else I have included in the record. There it is. I have had it typed up. As a matter of conscience I cannot engage in this deception. I was always taught, some 50 years ago when I got into public service, in 1948--that public office was a public trust. I believe Social Security is a public trust. I think the consummate 98 Senators said we ought to make it a public trust. They said, not only for us but for corporate America, we ought to make certain that some fast-moving merger artist can't come in on a takeover and abscond with the pension funds to pay the debt and pay himself a good bonus and leave everybody else hanging. So we have it in formal law, we have it in formal policy. But, when it comes to us, we run around and say ``unified, unified.'' There is nothing unified. It is expended moneys in violation of the formal statutory law of the United States of America, section 13301 of the Budget Act. I can't vote to violate that law and, therefore, will have to oppose the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Then, Madam President, I refer to the document itself. They do not have to list in this reconciliation bill the annual deficits, the outlays, budget authority, and the debt itself. But the document of last month, the conference report, does--and I refer to Mr. Kasich's bill: ``From the committee of conference submitted on the conference report on the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1998.'' If you turn to page 4--and I am going to ask the first 15 lines, just those 15 lines, be printed in the Record at this particular point. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from West Virginia, and the distinguished chairman from the Appropriations Committee, the Senator from Alaska, as to the point being made relative to the universal service fund. In the 4-year tour of work of trying to reconcile and bring up into the modern technological age communications law, there was one thing that was sacrosanct and generally agreed upon by everyone--and there really are no exceptions to it, because it was sort of a private endeavor. I know the distinguished occupant of the chair believes very strongly in the private market and the forces of private industry vis- a-vis those within the Government. But those within the telecommunications industry, years back, by way of the entities in which they belong, determined the volume of business, and with that volume of business and the costs, they then factored in each month through this private universal service fund the amount to be contributed thereto. And it is operated that way. From time to time the FCC has rules and regulations about it, but, generally speaking, it is a well-administered fund, not participated in, really, by Government law. The Government does not say or the 1996 Telecommunications Act does not require this. So it came with some amazement that, in all the machinations in trying to work for the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we were hearing that they were going into the universal service fund. We raised the point in discussions. We had resolutions about it. We put amendments up. And we thought we had gotten the clear, crystal word through to the negotiators and conferees. Now it appears that that has been disregarded. For one, we can see what was really bringing it about. They came in with the spectrum auctions, which this Senator and the Senator from Alaska joined in in the original instance, tried to raise money and factor in the market forces. But we have found in the more recent auctions that we sort of are scraping the cupboard dry or bare, as the expression is, whereby on an auction of last year, agreed upon in October to bring in $3.9 billion, only factored in or received $13.1 million instead of billions up there--few millions. So when they came with the factored-in $26.1 billion in spectrum auctions, they realized that the Congressional Budget Office, and anyone else estimating it, was going to have to downgrade it, so they put in a catchall, the universal service fund with a blank amount, until now, I guess. It is marked at the desk. I understand from the debate it is $3 billion. This cannot happen. You do not want to take what is really working and turn it into a slush fund for budgeteers or for conferees or for any other kind of nonsense that is going on along here--smoke and mirrors, as they call it. So I am glad the point is being made here in a most eloquent fashion by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, and now Senator Stevens, who was the ranking member on our Commerce and Communications Subcommittee for many, many years. We worked in this field. We fashioned out some funds that would be available for the schools, for the libraries, the hospitals, and otherwise. We really have, I would say, one of the finest elements of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, passed by a vote of 95 Senators here in this body, that the outstanding innovative feature was the agreed-upon embellishment of the universal service fund in order to bring in the libraries and schools and hospitals and otherwise of America, to bring to all of America communications services in the Internet and otherwise. Now, we just passed that early on, and we turned our backs, and, heavens above, budgeteers have turned it into a slush fund. I hope that does not occur. I hope the point is made. I do appreciate the leadership of our colleagues who pointed it out this afternoon. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in supporting appropriations for the completion of the dolphin study. The manager's amendment to S. 39 developed by the Commerce Committee is written so that most of the operative provisions of bill will become effective only if funding for the fist year of the study has been provided. The White House has expressed support for the appropriation mentioned by Senator Gregg for fiscal year 1998, and has indicated that funding will be requested to complete the study in fiscal year 1999, 2000, and 2001. Together with Senators Stevens, Byrd, and Gregg, I support the fiscal year 1998 appropriation for the first year of the study, and will support funds in years to come to complete the study. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the manager's amendment before us today is the product of many hours of work on the part of a number of my colleagues. I would like to express my personal appreciation to my friend, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and the chair of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, Senator Snowe, for their personal efforts and willingness to delay consideration of this legislation until interested parties could work out an agreement. In addition, I particularly would like to acknowledge the effort of the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Senator Kerry for his commitment to reaching a compromise. The Senator from Massachusetts made the mistake at our hearing on this legislation of volunteering to find a middle ground between the proponents and opponents of S. 39. Since that time, he has spent hours listening to and trying to accommodate the concerns of all sides in this contentious issue. Without his tireless effort, we would not be standing here today. My own interest in this legislation has always been: to ensure sound conservation of marine mammals; to provide consumers with the information they need when purchasing tuna; and to ensure U.S. tuna fishermen a level playing field on which to compete. The bill before us now is a far better bill. It addresses many of the concerns of Senators Boxer and Biden as well as others. These two Senators have been leaders in the area of dolphin protection--they wrote the dolphin-safe labeling law and have legitimate concerns about changing the dolphin-safe label without the scientific research to ensure that the tuna fishing methods allowed by S. 39 are safe for dolpins. The compromise before us today ensures that there will be a study of the effect of chasing and encircling dolpins and bases a change in the meaning of ``dolphin safe'' on the results of that study. Furthermore, the compromise addresses the concerns of Senator Inouye. It allows alternative labels on tuna but makes sure that the claims on those labels are true and can be verified. Again, I thank the primary sponsors of the bill, Senators Stevens and Breaux, and all of the parties who worked on the manager's amendment for their efforts to improve this legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, included in the fiscal year 1998 Transportation appropriations bill is an amendment that directs the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] to work with one segment of the aviation industry to develop an expeditious way to comply with the pilot record sharing legislation, enacted last year. When we passed the pilot record sharing legislation as part of the FAA Reauthorization Act, ``air carriers'' were required to obtain certain records, including FAA records, on pilots. The term air carrier includes more than just airlines. It also includes, for example, on- demand non-scheduled carriers. These carriers tend to hire pilots on an as-needed basis, and need the information from the FAA in a more timely manner than airlines. The FAA is aware that these carriers need to be able to respond quickly to information requests from the on-demand segment of the industry, and are striving to get the required information to them within 15 days. Ultimately, the information should be available on a real time basis through desk top computers. The amendment recognizes that the FAA must work with industry to figure out a means to comply with the law, and then implement those changes. There are many ways for the FAA to facilitate the passing of the information, and discussions should commence with the industry. Compliance is critical, but we cannot ask the impossible of the industry or the FAA. I also want to note that the directive in the Appropriations bill does not authorize any new program, but merely directs the FAA to work with the industry to implement last year's legislation. As a result, I do not believe that we are legislating on an Appropriations bill. I want to thank the chairman, Senator Shelby, and the ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, for their acceptance of the amendment.