Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I refer by emphasis that he says on question one: ``In your speech''--Senator Burns is referring to the speech made by Mr. Klein--``In your speech you used the following terms--`real' and `broad-based competition', `actual, broad-based entry', `true broad- based entry', `tangible entry', `large-scale entry', and entry on a `large-scale basis'. What do those terms mean to the Department?'' The rest is right there, but by way of emphasis, let me quote Mr. Klein in response: ``Thus, in my March 11 speech to which you refer, I stated that `[o]ur preference, though we recognize it may not always occur, is to see actual, broad-based * * * business and residential-- entry into a local market.' '' Now, Mr. President, it is very interesting because these communications lawyers, and I ought to know, because if you work with them over the years you begin to learn. What should interest anybody looking at qualifications of this particular nominee, he puts in italics ``[o]ur preference, though we recognize it may not always occur''--and thereupon, you could not believe it, Mr. President, you could not believe it, our Mr. Klein had the unmitigated gall, in response to his italic to file an opinion here, an addendum to the evaluation of the Department, the U.S. Department of Justice in the matter of the application of SBC Communications, Inc., docket 97-121. When? The day after that letter was sent, and here is what he says-- because you get the hint in the letter but you get the fact in this addendum. Let me quote: The statute requires that both business and residential subscribers be served by a competing provider, and that such provider must be exclusively or predominantly facilities- based. It does not, however, require that each class of customers (i.e., business and residential) must be served over a facilities-based competitor's own facilities. To the contrary, Congress expressly provided that the competitor may be providing services ``predominantly'' over its own facilities ``in combination with the resale of'' BOC services. . . . Thus, it does not matter whether the competitor reaches one class of customers--e.g., residential--only through resale, provided that the competitor's local exchange services as a whole are provided ``predominantly'' over its own facilities. Now, Mr. President, you have section 271, that particular provision turned right on its head. I have no better authority, Mr. President, not if this particular Senator's opinion is of any value, and I might say that no one Senator wrote the Telecommunication Act of 1996, but immodestly, if there is one that had more involvement than anybody else, it was me. I had put out a bill S. 1822; Senator Pressler put out his bill, S. 652. We changed it around back to S. 1822. Everyone knows that. Look at the finished documents. I worked around the clock, and I worked with Chairman Bliley, the Republican chairman on the House side. Here in a letter of June 20, 1997, to the Honorable Reed Hundt by Chairman Bliley, Chairman of the FCC. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. And there is no better way to bring this right to the focus of concern. Let me refer, without having to put the entire article of the Wall Street Journal from this morning into the Record, a headline, Mr. President, that ``MCI Widens Local Market Loss Estimate.'' The very first sentence, MCI communications corporation is calling for tougher regulatory action to break the competitive advantages enjoyed by the regional Bell telephone companies and the local phone markets, and they said its losses from entering that business could total $800 million this year, more than double its original estimate. And then the article continues. The point is, it is very difficult to break into a monopoly and it is very difficult to get a monopoly to give up marketshare. That has been quite obvious, working in telecommunications since I have been here, 30 years, that this is the keenest, most competitive, most take-advantage crowd you have ever seen. We are bogged down right now into the courts. All the promises about going into each other's businesses to compete have been forestalled, and mergers on course and everything else of that kind, so in writing this legislation we had a back and forth with the best of Washington lawyers on all sides, on every word, coaching us, more or less, for the last 4 years, until February of this last year, when we passed the bill. For that 4-year period, we got into the requirements--we call it a checklist--that the regional Bell operating companies had to comply with to open up their markets before they could get into long distance, ipso facto, allow them into long distance, with the monopoly control of whoever is going to receive the call locally, and you have a monopolistic situation and they will run a touchdown and the long distance companies and all competition will be extinguished. So we had a debate over every particular facet. One particular requirement is labeled here in section 271 of the particular act and it is referred to in the actual conference report on page 33 in the report language, section 271. Let me read it so it is intelligently understood here: . . . the Bell operating company is providing access and interconnection to its network facilities for the network facilities of one or more unaffiliated competing providers of telephone exchange services . . . [as defined in section 347(A)] to residential and business subscribers. For the unattuned, the emphasis should be to ``residential and business subscribers.'' We wanted to have a facilities-based competitor operating there before that particular Bell company could take off into the long distance competition. There is no question in my mind that the distinguished gentleman under consideration, Mr. Joel Klein, understood this. He made a talk on March 11 at the Willard Inter-Continental Hotel here in Washington to the Glasser Legalworks Seminar, and the seminar was entitled ``Competitive Policy In Communications Industries: New Antitrust Approaches.'' On page 9 of that particular talk, I quote Mr. Klein himself. Now, let me add a few words about how we will apply this standard to RBOC applications under Section 271 of the Act. Our preference, though we recognize that it may not always occur, is to see actual, broad-based--i.e., business and residential--entry into a local market. And it goes on and on explaining. When my friend from Montana, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications on the Committee of Commerce here in the U.S. Senate, Senator Conrad Burns saw that, he wrote a letter to Mr. Klein. I am sorry I do not have my hand immediately on that letter itself, but he listed a series of questions in his letter to the Acting Assistant Attorney General, and the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Joel Klein on May 20, answered the letter. I ask unanimous consent, so it will be understood, in fairness to everybody, the entire letter and the enclosure be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as Americans across the United States celebrated Independence Day this past weekend, many enjoyed the summer delight of a red, juicy watermelon. I rise today to recognize watermelon farmers, the people who make this Fourth of July tradition possible. All day yesterday and today, my staff, along with the staffs of Representative John Spratt and Representative Jim Clyburn, will be delivering South Carolina watermelons to offices throughout the Senate and House of Representatives. Thanks to South Carolina watermelon farmers such as Jim Williams of Lodge in Colleton County, those of us here in Washington will be able to cool off from the summer heat with a delicious South Carolina watermelon. This year, farmers across South Carolina planted more than 11,000 acres of watermelons. These are some of the finest watermelons produced anywhere in the United States. Watermelons of all varieties--Jubilees, Sangrias, Allsweets, Star Brites, Crimson Sweets, red seedless, yellow seedlesss, and other hybrids are produced in South Carolina and marketed across the Nation. Through the end of this month, farmers in Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Hampton, and other southern South Carolina counties will harvest hundreds of thousands of watermelons. In the Pee Dee areas around Chesterfield, Darlington, and Florence counties, the harvest will continue until about August 20. Mr. President, as we savor the taste of these watermelons, we should remember the work and labor that goes into producing such a delicious fruit. While Americans enjoyed watermelons at the beach and at backyard barbecues all over the Nation this past weekend, most did not stop to consider where they came from. Farmers will be laboring all summer in the heat and humidity to bring us what we call Mother Nature's perfect candy. These remarkable watermelons are sweet, succulent and, most importantly, nutritious and fat free. The truth is, Mr. President, that our farmers are too often the forgotten workers in our country. Through their dedication and commitment, our Nation is able to enjoy a wonderful selection of fresh fruit, vegetables and other foods. In fact, our agricultural system is the envy of the world. South Carolina farmers lead the way in the production of watermelons. For example, my State was a leader in the development of black plastic and irrigation to expand the watermelon growing season. By covering the earth in the spring with black plastic, farmers are able to speed up the melons' growth by raising soil temperatures. In addition, the plastic allows farmers to shut out much of the visible light, which inhibits weed growth. In addition, I am pleased to note that the scientists at the USDA Vegetable Laboratory in my hometown of Charleston continue to strive to find even more efficient and effective ways to produce one of our State's most popular fruits. Therefore, as Congressmen and their staffs feast on watermelons this week, I hope they all will remember the folks in South Carolina who made this endeavor possible: Jim Williams of Williams Farms in Lodge; Les Tindal, our State agriculture commissioner; Martin Eubanks and Minta Wade of the South Carolina Department of Agriculture; Randy Cockrell and the members of the South Carolina Watermelon Association; and finally, Bennie Hughes and the South Carolina Watermelon Board in Columbia. They all have worked extremely hard to ensure that Congressmen can get a taste of South Carolina. So, I hope everyone in our Nation's Capital will be smiling as they enjoy the pleasure of a South Carolina watermelon.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of one of South Carolina's finest citizens, Rev. Roscoe C. Wilson, pastor of Saint John Baptist Church in Columbia. For the past 50 years, Reverend Wilson has presided over the same church and during this time, the congregation has increased from 150 to over 800 members. Roscoe Wilson began his career of public service very early. In 1942, after graduation from high school, he joined the U.S. Army where he served for the next 4\1/2\ years. Upon his discharge in 1946, young Roscoe moved to Columbia, SC, and entered Benedict College where he earned his bachelor of arts and bachelor of divinity degrees. It was there that he met his future wife, the late Ethel Celeste Williams. In 1948, at an unusually tender age, Roscoe Wilson was appointed pastor of Saint John Baptist Church. Together Roscoe and Ethel Wilson built a strong parish and became part of the tightly knit Benedict College community. Ethel Wilson worked at the college and was fondly named ``Ma'' by the students. The Wilsons often provided housing for out-of-town students who were unable to afford a room on campus. Reverend Wilson still refers to them as his foster children. The Wilsons raised two of their own, Roscoe, Jr., and Preston. Roscoe, Jr., director of the Midlands Marine Institute, a foundation for troubled youth, is married to the former Eva Rakes, and has two children, Renaldo and Asia. Preston is a well- known carpenter in the Columbia area, most noted for his woodwork. Social activism has appropriately been the hallmark of Reverend Wilson's pastoral career. During the early civil rights movement, he worked to peacefully integrate public health facilities such as the Crafts-Farrow Mental Hospital and the Bryan S. Dorn Veterans Hospital. Saint John Baptist Church, which has a large outreach ministry, runs a progressive preschool serving approximately 100 children between the ages of 3 and 5 years old. This preschool program has been an enormous success. Its pupils begin first grade with strong skills and high confidence. In the little free time he has, Reverend Wilson enjoys the outdoors. He loves to hunt and fish and occasionally returns to Texas to visit family. It is at home in Columbia, though, where he indulges his true passion, gardening. He says that tending his roses helps him to focus on the important things. It is this care and focus which has made him such a successful pastor. He tends his congregation like his rose bed. Saint John Baptist Church will dearly miss Reverend Wilson though his work with the church and the community will undoubtedly continue. All of us in South Carolina are very grateful for this Texas transplant. We wish him the very best in his future endeavors.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I, too, would like to join my distinguished colleagues in this discussion. The leadership of the Commerce Committee worked very hard in the Senate and during the Senate-House conference to create this Commission. Congress even provided a substantial appropriation to fund its activities. The work of the Commission is extremely important. I know that my colleagues share my concern that aviation monies are not being used for aviation purposes, and we need to work to correct that. During our Commerce Committee markup recently, I expressed my desire to treat the Airport and Airways Trust Fund differently, and many members indicated that we needed to do something different for aviation. The GAO report on airport funding suggests that the airports are in need of $10 billion, according to the airports, and $6.5 billion, according to the FAA, depending upon the type of projects included. The Airport Improvement Program is an important component of the work of the FAA. We cannot meet future growth needs without expanding our airports and modernizing the air traffic control system. The Commission work and recommendations will help us in the debate in finding ways to meet our future aviation system needs.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition of S. 949, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997. I was necessarily absent and unable to vote on the final passage of the bill, but I would like my statement to be recorded in the Record. There has been a great deal of congratulations about how this is the first major tax cut since the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in 1981. I would like to remind everyone of the consequences of that particular measure. Since 1981, our deficits have exploded, growing to as high as $403 billion. Our national debt has soared from under $1 trillion in 1980 to $5.4 trillion this year. The interest costs on this debt have skyrocketed during that period from $74.8 billion to $360 billion, representing spending of $1 billion a day. This money does not go to purchase any new bridges, roads, airports, or any other public good. Instead, it is wasted on servicing this debt. These interest payments, in essence, represent a mammoth tax on the American people which will continue to rise until we can get our fiscal house in order. Since 1993, we have made substantial progress toward reducing our deficit. Despite the opposition of every Republican in the Senate, we passed a tough deficit reduction bill which included unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. The results have been clear. Our deficit has fallen for 5 years in a row, unemployment is at a 24 year low, inflation is minimal, interest rates are down, 12.1 million new jobs have been created, and business investment is at a post-war high. Yet, instead of building on this progress, we have chosen to abandon ship and engage in the political temptation of tax cuts. Mr. President, our Nation is experiencing a period of prosperity, partially because we were courageous enough to make the right choice in 1993 and begin to reduce our deficit. We should stay on this course until we truly balance our books. Instead, this year's budget deal engages in the same old trickery of back loaded tax cuts, borrowed trust funds, and unrealistic economic assumptions. Rather than doing what is right for the American people, we have chosen to do what is right to get us past the next election. I fear, however, that the results of this measure will be felt long after then.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in every area of human endeavor, major advances often seem to depend on a single individual whose unique vision and dedication to pursuing that vision break through existing barriers to understanding. On Tuesday, the world lost one of those individuals, a pioneer in the area of oceanography and marine conservation. I am speaking, of course, of Jacques-Yves Cousteau. I have had the pleasure and honor of knowing Jacques Cousteau as a friend and colleague for more than three decades. Our relationship was based on a common passion for exploring and protecting the oceans. We also shared a lifelong interest in ocean and coastal management and in sustainable development and use of marine resources. One of the most valuable perks of membership in the U.S. Senate is the opportunity it affords us to meet gifted leaders from every walk of life. Few of those leaders have made a greater or more lasting contribution than Jacques- Yves Cousteau. Jacques' first adventure underwater was in Vermont at age 10. For the next 75 years, he continued his adventures, and he brought the rest of us with him. He was a pioneer in undersea exploration, and I can testify firsthand that diving with him was an unforgettable experience. He developed the first scuba gear, took the first underwater color pictures, and started the first undersea colony. Probably as important as his scientific and technical achievements, Jacques brought the oceans to life for millions of Americans through breathtaking books, films, and his documentary television series, ``The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau.'' His film ``The Silent World'' brought viewers aboard his ship, the Calypso, for the first time and won an Oscar for best documentary. He went on to win 2 more Oscars, 10 Emmys, and numerous other awards by astonishing viewers with the life under the waters all over the world from the Red Sea to Antarctica and from the Caribbean to the Indian Ocean. As Jacques continued to explore the ocean, he became deeply committed to protecting it against pollution and other manmade hazards. In 1971, he accepted the Senate Commerce Committee's invitation to testify and spoke to us about the International Conference on Ocean Pollution. He later testifed before the committee on other ocean issues. His testimony and other activities were key to public realization that the oceans are not a vast and unlimited resource, that human activities do indeed have profound impacts on the oceans, and consequently, that we have a duty to protect the marine environment. A number of years later, I was privileged to present Jacques with the 1983 Neptune Award of the American Oceanic Organization. The award recognized his extraordinary contribution to promoting the use, understanding, and protection of the oceans. At the award ceremony, Jacques showed his new film on his trip up the Amazon River. None of those present will forget his evocative description of the pink dolphins and flooded forests of the Amazon. Jacques had a rare gift for allowing people to see the wonderful diversity of life beneath the water's surface. Jacques-Yves Cousteau taught the world how to appreciate, understand, explore, use, and preserve the oceans which cover 71 percent of the Earth's surface. We will greatly miss his wit, wisdom, and zest for life.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Helms and Senator Biden for accepting this amendment regarding facilities to support our men and women serving in the United States' Diplomatic Service in the People's Republic of China. Our United States diplomatic facilities in China are in poor shape. The housing is in disrepair and for our chancery we occupy a building that formerly was used as the Pakistani Embassy. We spend years training our diplomatic personnel to be China hands who speak Chinese fluently. They are the best and the brightest in our foreign service. And, then we send them and their families to live and work in substandard facilities. It sends the wrong message. Mr. President, it hurts morale and retention. With the fall of the wall, these Americans are our front-line--our State Department economic officers, our commerce Department commercial officers, our consular officers who help Americans in distress overseas, our Customs Service employees who enforce our trade laws, and other agency personnel. Regardless of what your position is with China, on human rights or trade, the fact remains that the United States and China have and will have one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world. The People's Republic of China is our fifth largest trading partner and the Chinese economy is growing at over 10 percent per partner and the Chinese economy is growing at over 10 percent per year. They are becoming the preeminent geo-political power in Asia. I have raised this issue with former Secretary Christopher and Secretary of State Albright. I have discussed it with Ambassador Sasser. They all agree that something must be done to invest in our facilities to support our people who are serving in China. This amendment provides that from within the total amounts authorized in this bill, up to $90 million is provided for renovation, acquisition, and construction of housing and secure diplomatic facilities at the United States Embassy in Beijing and the consulate in Shanghai. It does so without adding additional funds. It requires the Appropriations committee, on which I serve as ranking member on the Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee, to actually scrub the budget and find the money and address this issue. Mr. President, this amendment is the right thing to do. It is cosponsored by Senator Murray from Washington who has been to Beijing recently and who has seen firsthand the need for modernization of facilities. Again, I thank Chairman Helms and Senator Biden for their support. Amendment No. 407 (Purpose: To provide for an independent Inspector General for the Broadcasting Board of Governors) On page 20, beginning on line 4, strike all through page 24, line 8, and insert the following: (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the United States Information Agency'' and inserting ``the Broadcasting Board of Governors''; and (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the United States Information Agency,'' and inserting ``the Broadcasting Board of Governors,''. (c) Executive Schedule.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking the following: ``Inspector General, United States Information Agency.''; and (2) by inserting the following: ``Inspector General, Broadcasting Board of Governors.''. (d) Amendments to Public Law 103-236.--Subsections (i) and (j) of section 308 of the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6207 (i) and (j)) are amended-- (1) by striking ``Inspector General of the United States Information Agency'' each place it appears and inserting ``Inspector General of the Broadcasting Board of Governors''; and (2) by striking ``the Director of the United States Information Agency,''. (e) Transfer of Functions.-- (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), there are transferred to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of State and the Foreign Service the functions that the Office of Inspector General of the United States Information Agency exercised before the effective date of this title (including all related functions of the Inspector General of the United States Information Agency). (2) Transfer to inspector general of broadcasting board of governors.--There are transferred to the Inspector General of the Broadcasting Board of Governors the functions (including related functions) that the Office of Inspector General of the United States Information Agency exercised with respect to the International Broadcasting Bureau, Voice of America, WORLDNET TV and Film Service, the office of Cuba Broadcasting, and RFE/RL, Incorporated, before the effective date of this title. (f) Transfer and Allocations of Appropriations and Personnel.--The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is authorized to make such incidental dispositions of personnel, assets, liabilities, grants, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds held, used, arising from, available to, or to be made available in connection with such functions, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today as a supporter and cosponsor of Senator Byrd's sense-of-the-Senate resolution, Senate Resolution 98, regarding ratification of any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Back in 1992, the United States and the rest of the world agreed to work, on a voluntary basis, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which scientists believed could affect climate and sea levels over the next century. Unfortunately, this agreement, aimed at returning greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, has failed. Now, the administration is negotiating an agreement aimed at meeting this 1990 level. Instead of requiring countries, all countries-- developed, developing, and underdeveloped--to agree on voluntary efforts, these negotiations are focused on making the 1990 level mandatory for only developed countries. In short, it will increase the burden of compliance on the United States and other developed countries, while doing nothing to ensure that developing countries meet these targets. Yes, the United States and other developed countries are responsible for the bulk of these emissions but that will not always be the case. Many developing countries, such as China, Mexico, India, and Brazil, are on course to surpass United States emissions. It makes no sense to give these countries a pass. I am not saying the United States should not do its fair share, we should. My concern is that the agreement is shortsighted. Failing to include these developing countries does nothing to head off the emission problems which they will soon face. In addition, I have a long record of defending the American worker and American industry from unfair business and trade practices overseas--many of which occur in these developing countries. My fear is that failing to include developing nations in this agreement will undermine America's ability to compete internationally and will only work to force American industry overseas to these developing areas. America has the strongest economy in the world. I want to ensure it remains that way. Placing the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions only on developed countries and ignoring developing countries will do nothing to secure economic stability. In short, this resolution calls for the United States to refuse to sign any agreement unless the developing countries are included in a legally binding regime of emission control measures. It is an effort to ensure that all countries are placed on a level playing field. With regard to my record on environmental issues, there have been some who have asked if my support of Senate Resolution 98 undermines my long record of supporting efforts to clean and protect our environment. Let me say now, it does not. In my opinion, this resolution will strengthen efforts to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by ensuring that all countries meet the same standards. In closing, I submit for the Record the authoritative and expert opinion of Dr. James B. Edwards, the former Secretary of Energy, and encourage my colleagues to read his opinions on this matter. The material follows: Pouring Gas Reductions Down Drain If a new climate treaty to include binding restrictions on the emission of greenhouse gases is a bad idea--and it is-- then the immediate consequence of such a move is even worse: that a tax is imposed on U.S. industries that burn oil, gas and coal. The cost would ultimately fall on American consumers--without necessarily providing benefits to anyone if other countries continue to pollute. The logical conclusion should be: Don't make the first blunder so you are not forced into making the even worse second blunder. But in just seven months an agreement on a new climate treaty could be a done deal. If government commitments made at the latest round of negotiations in Europe are any indication, there could be a treaty in place by December. There is just one problem: U.S. ratification is going to take a two-thirds vote of the Senate eventually. In the view of climatologists as esteemed as Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia, an expert on computer simulations of the climate, and the University of Alabama's John Christy, it will take decades before scientists gain a comprehensive understanding of how greenhouse gas emissions affect the earth's climate. One thing scientists do know is that the concentration of greenhouse gases is building up slowly--less than 0.5 percent annually for carbon dioxide-- and that gives us time to implement effective mitigation measures. Unfortunately, the proposed treaty places binding commitments on industrial nations but none on developing countries. Even such economic powerhouses as China, Korea, and Indonesia would be let off the hook, while the United States would be required to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 15 to 20 percent by 2010 or soon thereafter. Such self-imposed restrictions could backfire. Simply put, the danger is that developing countries will have no incentive to reduce emissions. Their output would overwhelm reductions made by industrial nations--just the opposite of what a new treaty is supposed to achieve. In fact, developing countries, as a group, are expected to produce the majority of greenhouse emissions in future years. According to a report by the U.S. Department of Energy, efforts to restrict fossil fuel emissions with a carbon tax would do serious damage to our economy. The hardest hit would be energy-intensive industries, especially petroleum refining, chemicals, automobile manufacturing, paper products, iron and steel, aluminum and cement. These large industries would be at a disadvantage in the world marketplace, and the cost in dollars, as well as in lost jobs, would be staggering. The most responsible economic estimates of the cost to cap carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2010 or soon thereafter range from $250 billion to $300 billion per year--an amount that would reduce the U.S. gross domestic product by about 4 percent. For comparison, that's nearly equal to what was spent last year on Social Security. This is not to suggest that the United States should do nothing about reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. When major industrialized countries meet in Denver in late June at the ``Group of Seven'' economic summit, climate change will be on the agenda. Efforts should be directed toward establishing a flexible route that could achieve the same long-term benefits but at far lower cost. For example, spreading the responsibility globally, possibly through an emissions trading system involving developing countries, would lower the cost substantially. Under an emissions trading system, any country exceeding its allotment of greenhouse emissions, pays a regulatory fine. The significant differences between this plan and a carbon tax are that technological innovation, market mechanisms and total global emissions are the defining characteristics of this alternative approach to reducing greenhouse emissions. Major efforts should be directed at exporting advanced power systems to developing countries such as China and India so that they can begin to stabilize their emissions, without depriving them of an opportunity for economic growth. After all, as its share of industrial output rises, China is expected to become the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, emitting nearly double the amount the United States emits and more than triple what Western Europe produces. It's very simple: Before we hobble our economy and our society with costly new regulations and taxes we should ask ourselves whether the hoped-for benefits justify the cost to our economy and whether there is a better alternative. And environmentalists ought to keep another perspective mind: For any global emissions reduction program to succeed, all nations must participate.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing this important bill to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. Last year marked the 30th anniversary of the Sea Grant Program, so it is especially fitting that we propose legislation today that will revitalize the program and continue its effective operation into the next century. At its core, Sea Grant is a program that brings competitive, high- quality science to bear on problems affecting our Nation's oceans and coasts. Sea Grant's top priority is creating new economic opportunities by forging alliances among academia, government, and industry to transfer information and technology into the hands of people who can truly use it. For example, Sea Grant led the development of hybrid striped bass aquaculture, which has grown from a university demonstration project to a $6 million fish farming industry in just 6 years. In addition, Sea Grant has an extraordinary record of success in balancing development with sound marine conservation, working with citizen-volunteers to clean beaches and monitor environmental quality, and promoting the effective management of fisheries and other marine resources for the benefit of future generations. Sea Grant is a national leader in the field of marine biotechnology, which has shown enormous promise in truly revolutionizing our use of marine resources. Marine biotechnology research funded by Sea Grant has already succeeded in discovering new pharmaceuticals from the sea, developing new, environmentally-friendly products with a wide range of applications, improving fisheries management and stock assessments through advances at the molecular level, and enhancing environmental remediation through the development of compounds that combat oil spills and other toxic substances in the marine environment. In South Carolina, a study on how the Eastern oyster builds its shell laid the groundwork for the development of alternatives to non-biodegradable water treatment compounds and detergent additives. Based on this research, the Donlor Corporation was formed to synthesize and market these new materials. The company's 50,000 square foot plant will soon begin operations. A results-oriented point of exchange, Sea Grant brings Federal and State managers together providing an opportunity for local and regional needs to receive national attention. Conversely, national initiatives are placed on local and regional agendas. This legislation will bolster such exchanges by giving members of the Sea Grant network throughout the country a larger voice in planning national initiatives. Moreover, Sea Grant is training the next century's leaders in marine policy. Sea Grant graduate student fellowships give marine policy training to tomorrow's scientists and managers. Efforts like South Carolina's Sea Partners, a joint program sponsored by the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium and the U.S. Coast Guard, reach out to kindergarten through high school students regarding the problem of marine pollution. Through such programs, young people become interested in ocean and coastal issues and develop life-long respect for conserving the marine environment. Mr. President, more than a quarter-century ago, the Stratton Commission outlined a seminal vision for the benefits this Nation could derive from the oceans and coasts. The Sea Grant Program has played a vital part in realizing this vision through the application of sound scientific research to problems affecting our publicly-owned marine resources. The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen the Sea Grant Program, improve the procedures by which it operates, clarify the respective roles of the Federal Government and the universities that participate in the program, and reduce administrative costs. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important program and this excellent bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing this important bill to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. Last year marked the 30th anniversary of the Sea Grant Program, so it is especially fitting that we propose legislation today that will revitalize the program and continue its effective operation into the next century. At its core, Sea Grant is a program that brings competitive, high- quality science to bear on problems affecting our Nation's oceans and coasts. Sea Grant's top priority is creating new economic opportunities by forging alliances among academia, government, and industry to transfer information and technology into the hands of people who can truly use it. For example, Sea Grant led the development of hybrid striped bass aquaculture, which has grown from a university demonstration project to a $6 million fish farming industry in just 6 years. In addition, Sea Grant has an extraordinary record of success in balancing development with sound marine conservation, working with citizen-volunteers to clean beaches and monitor environmental quality, and promoting the effective management of fisheries and other marine resources for the benefit of future generations. Sea Grant is a national leader in the field of marine biotechnology, which has shown enormous promise in truly revolutionizing our use of marine resources. Marine biotechnology research funded by Sea Grant has already succeeded in discovering new pharmaceuticals from the sea, developing new, environmentally-friendly products with a wide range of applications, improving fisheries management and stock assessments through advances at the molecular level, and enhancing environmental remediation through the development of compounds that combat oil spills and other toxic substances in the marine environment. In South Carolina, a study on how the Eastern oyster builds its shell laid the groundwork for the development of alternatives to non-biodegradable water treatment compounds and detergent additives. Based on this research, the Donlor Corporation was formed to synthesize and market these new materials. The company's 50,000 square foot plant will soon begin operations. A results-oriented point of exchange, Sea Grant brings Federal and State managers together providing an opportunity for local and regional needs to receive national attention. Conversely, national initiatives are placed on local and regional agendas. This legislation will bolster such exchanges by giving members of the Sea Grant network throughout the country a larger voice in planning national initiatives. Moreover, Sea Grant is training the next century's leaders in marine policy. Sea Grant graduate student fellowships give marine policy training to tomorrow's scientists and managers. Efforts like South Carolina's Sea Partners, a joint program sponsored by the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium and the U.S. Coast Guard, reach out to kindergarten through high school students regarding the problem of marine pollution. Through such programs, young people become interested in ocean and coastal issues and develop life-long respect for conserving the marine environment. Mr. President, more than a quarter-century ago, the Stratton Commission outlined a seminal vision for the benefits this Nation could derive from the oceans and coasts. The Sea Grant Program has played a vital part in realizing this vision through the application of sound scientific research to problems affecting our publicly-owned marine resources. The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen the Sea Grant Program, improve the procedures by which it operates, clarify the respective roles of the Federal Government and the universities that participate in the program, and reduce administrative costs. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important program and this excellent bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today, I, along with Senator Thurmond, introduce duty suspension legislation designed to permit the import of certain tire manufacturing equipment into the United States duty free. U.S. companies do not manufacture the custom equipment to be imported, and therefore its importation will not displace domestic sourcing. Moreover, because the product at issue is manufacturing equipment, it will assist in the creation of additional jobs in the tire manufacturing industry. I believe that this is the most appropriate use of duty suspension legislation. The custom imported product will not displace any product manufactured in the United States. Moreover, the imported product will assist in creating more productive capacity in the United States. This equipment will be used to manufacture a product that heretofore was not made in the United States. I am therefore hopeful that this new capacity can be used to supply both domestic and foreign needs and will increase employment in the tire manufacturing industry.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today, I, along with Senator Thurmond, introduce duty suspension legislation designed to permit the import of certain tire manufacturing equipment into the United States duty free. U.S. companies do not manufacture the custom equipment to be imported, and therefore its importation will not displace domestic sourcing. Moreover, because the product at issue is manufacturing equipment, it will assist in the creation of additional jobs in the tire manufacturing industry. I believe that this is the most appropriate use of duty suspension legislation. The custom imported product will not displace any product manufactured in the United States. Moreover, the imported product will assist in creating more productive capacity in the United States. This equipment will be used to manufacture a product that heretofore was not made in the United States. I am therefore hopeful that this new capacity can be used to supply both domestic and foreign needs and will increase employment in the tire manufacturing industry.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, let me talk to a very, very important point other than taxes and the increase thereof. What we have is the jargon of ``I'm against taxes, I'm against taxes, I'm against taxes,'' but now we have reached the point where we are increasing spending, because we are not paying our bills. We are increasing spending by $1 billion a day. That is the interest cost on the national debt. When Reaganomics commenced in 1981, the interest costs on the national debt were $74.8 billion. We had less than $1 trillion debt, and the interest cost was only $74.8 billion. So looking at it in a historical sense, for 200 years of our history, with the cost of all the wars, we had never reached a $1 trillion debt. We had paid for the Revolution, right on up through World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and yet, in the last 16 years, without the cost of a war, we have jumped to a $5.4 trillion debt. And it is all because you wouldn't pay the bill. You were against taxes, and you were against paying the bill. It is wonderful to go home with that singsong and continue. I have a chart right here to show exactly what I am talking about. There is the $74.8 billion in interest costs at the time of President Reagan. This has all the Presidents since Truman, the actual deficits, the actual debt and thereby the forced interest costs, which I call interest taxes. You know, they say death and taxes can't be avoided; neither can interest costs on the national debt. So beware of the colleague who comes and says, ``I am against taxes, and I'm never going to vote for taxes,'' like this is a luxury we all can afford. I would love that. I can just come here and join in the spending. We would never have any taxes and we would all get reelected, but the country would go broke because you have to pay, as this debt goes through the ceiling, the interest cost. It is now, as shown here by the CBO figures, at 359 billion, and this chart is somewhat outdated by several weeks. Its actually higher now. Still, there is no question it is $1 billion a day we are spending for nothing. I know my distinguished colleague from North Carolina is interested in highways. So is the Senator from South Carolina. This $1 billion doesn't pay for a single road or a single bridge. It doesn't engage us in any research. It helps us not with health research at the National Institutes of Health. It doesn't pay for defense. It doesn't give foreign aid. It doesn't do anything but represent waste, and we are determined to continue this waste. Let me get right to the point about this particular budget resolution because, Madam President, I say advisedly, if there ever was a fraud, this particular budget resolution is a fraud. I say that advisedly to my colleagues in the Senate. The distinguished Senator from Iowa gets up and says, ``This is bipartisan, this is bipartisan, and it just passed the House with 350 votes.'' Then our distinguished ranking member on this side of the aisle on the Budget Committee said, ``This is consensus, we had to get together, we got a consensus,'' and thereby is the sizzle that is supposed to sell this steak when the truth of the matter is it is one piece of meat that is an outrageous fraud. Let's go to the partisan resolution that we passed in 1993. If you want to see frauds, it is when they get together. When they don't get together, you are getting nearer the truth in budgeting. Back in 1993, Madam President, we cut some 250,000 Federal employees off the payroll. We came in and we created savings, spending cuts of $500 billion, and, yes, we increased taxes. We taxed beer, we taxed gasoline and, yes, we taxed Social Security. I can see my colleague on the other side of the aisle talking about that Social Security tax increase that the Senator from South Carolina voted for and, pointing over to this side, the distinguished Senator said, ``Ah, they will be hunting you down like dogs in the street and shooting you.'' The chairman of the Finance Committee was willing to bet everything on it. He said he would bet his home and everything else. Of course, the poor gentleman is not here anymore, but he was going to bet it all. Another distinguished Senator said, ``Wait a minute, these tax increases, they'll take the money and spend it, it won't be allocated to the deficit.'' And they went down the list deriding, if you please, the partisan budget of 1993, that budget plan. What has it given us, without a single Republican vote? The partisan budget is what I want to talk about. This morning, I was listening to early morning TV. I turned on CNN at 6 o'clock, a little before 6, and they had the chief economist for Bear Stearns, and he said this economy is the strongest that he had ever experienced in 24 years. We have the lowest unemployment in those 24 years. We've got inflation down to its lowest point in 35 years. We have created 12.1 million jobs. Business investment is up to the highest point since World War II. The stock market has doubled and, ah, deficits, Madam President, deficits, the deficits for the first time are really starting to increase. I was with President Johnson here in the Senate when we balanced the budget back in 1968 and 1969. Since that time, deficits have been going up, up, and away; the national debt is up, up, up, and away; interest cost spending for nothing is up, up, up and away. But, Madam President, under President Clinton's plan of 1993, deficits have been declining each year, every year, for 5 years. Heavens above, what does this instrument do? I hold in my hand the conference report. On page 4, I looked for the word balance. Instead, you see the word deficit. If you want to know what the actual deficit is, all you need do is go to the public debt. For fiscal year 2001, it is $6,307,300,000,000. For fiscal year 2002, instead of balance, it goes up to $6,481,200,000,000. So the actual deficit is $173,900,000,000. Here is the figure, here is the document, here is the truth. And while the Senator from South Carolina cries fraud, we have this so-called bipartisan consensus, where we say ``I'll take your tax cuts if you take my spending increases and we'll all run around on the floor of the Congress hollering balance, balance, balance.'' Everywhere man cries balance, but as for me, give me balance or give me staying the course. I wanted staying the course, but here is what they did instead. I hope they get ashes in their mouths, that media crowd, when they say ``balance,'' ``the balanced budget plan,'' ``the balanced budget resolution that passed,'' ``the balanced budget.'' It is time we stop lying to the American people and tell the truth and show the page. I dare them to refute it. I have the document right here right now. So what has happened? Instead of staying the course, Madam President, we have gone off the wagon. President Clinton put us on the wagon. We stopped drinking that old deficit whiskey, but now we are taking the bottle back up and we are going to start drinking again. And we are going to get drunk on the wonderful balance--balance, 200-proof--excuse me, $173,900,000,000- proof. That is what we have to drink here this afternoon. And how do they do it? It is similar to another time, back in 1990, when I was on the Budget Committee trying to hold the line on Gramm- Rudman-Hollings, with the automatic spending triggers across the board. They abolished them at 1:45 a.m., October 21, early in the morning. And I raised a point of order. They voted me down. That is when I asked for a divorce from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. It was supposed to be a solid boost toward fiscal responsibility, not a shield they started hiding behind. But, again, what they do is take unrealistic savings or spending cuts. We have it over in the Commerce Committee. I talked to the distinguished chairman this morning. You are not going to find $26 billion in spectrum auctions. What we did back in 1990 was to revise the economics. We did the same thing again this year. What we did here is, we found $225 billion the day before they made the agreement. That was convenient, wasn't it? They found $225 billion. And they came again with backloading, just as they did in 1990. I looked at this particular instrument here, the 1997 conference report, and saw that 72 percent of the spending cuts occur in the last 2 years. They backload it. Unrealistic--not going to happen. But worst of all, they go again and start looting the trust funds of America--looting the trust funds, the pension funds, to the extent where we now owe, in 1997, $1.484 trillion. Under this particular resolution, by the year 2002, we will owe just under $2 trillion-- $1.992 trillion. Now, here is how they do it. They use Social Security moneys. They use the military retirees' money, civilian retirees' pension funds, the unemployment compensation moneys, the highway trust funds--and we are not building highways--and the airport moneys. That is scandalous. Right to the point, Madam President, they are going to continue the tax increases that the Senator from North Carolina talks about. They will continue the airport and airways tax on passenger taxes that we pay as airline travelers. But that is not going to airlines. That is going to give you an inheritance tax cut or capital gains tax cut. That is outrageous, scandalous. That is a breach of trust. If you want to talk about a breach of trust, I was reading Bob Reich's book. Former Secretary of Labor, Secretary Reich, said, ``I'm proud of two things: One, during my 4-year tenure I got a minimum wage; and the second thing, I passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994.'' And what did that provide? All of us in the Congress said, ``Corporate America, you have got to fully fund your pensions so the employees can count on it. You can't use it, you can't raid those trust funds, those pension funds.'' Madam President, guess what? Just 3 weeks ago, Denny McLain, the all- star championship pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, was sentenced to 8 years in prison because, as head of a corporation, he used the pension funds to pay a corporate debt. Here we are using trust funds to pay the Government debt. In private, outside-the-beltway America, you get a prison sentence for this. Here in the wonderful Congress, heavens above, you get the ``Good Government Award,'' you get consensus, you get bipartisanship, you get one grand fraud. It is time we stopped lying to the American people. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. As they say in England, hear, hear. We are delighted to hear of the elevation of our friend Michael to Lord Jopling. It shows, amongst other things in England, that you do not only have to be young, you can be old and still succeed. I wish him well, too, in his recovery, and I appreciate the Senator from Alaska pointing out this wonderful happening.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise in support of the sense-of-the- Senate resolution. The resolution points out the unreliability of the budget resolution's assumptions about future spectrum auctions. At issue here is the credibility of the entire budget itself. The budget assumes $26.3 billion from spectrum auctions by the year 2002. Such assumptions are not supported by the record. The only explanation is that the Budget Committee and the administration have crafted these assumptions out of thin air. We are told by CBO that our budget problems can be solved by auctioning the spectrum. People around here continue to think spectrum is a canned good sitting on a shelf at the FCC. These budget numbers are absolutely irresponsible and CBO knows there is no justification for these estimations. Just look at the most recent auction that was held last month. Last fall, the budget negotiators fell short in their offsets and decided to auction a specific 30 MHz of spectrum. CBO told us the auction would yield $2.9 billion. The auction only yielded $13.1 million. Is this how you balance a budget? I must remind the budget negotiators that the law requires the FCC to assign licenses to use the spectrum by auction and that the assignments shall not be based on revenue considerations. Every time the Congress mandates an auction as a budget offset we are violating our own law. And every time we mandate a specific frequency to be auctioned, we are micromanaging in an area we have no expertise in. The spectrum simply is not a canned good sitting on a shelf. Management of the public's spectrum should not be determined on budget numbers. Just look at the status of the market for start-up wireless companies. Wall Street is saying there is a glut in the marketplace. There is no financing available for the recent ``C'' block licensees. How can CBO possibly justify $26.3 billion when you look at the April auction in combination with the problems in the ``C'' block? The FCC recently suspended the interest payments for several of the ``C'' block licensees because they were unable to meet their obligations to the Treasury. How can CBO justify $26.3 billion when ``C'' block licensees are going into bankruptcy and being bailed out by the FCC. The Treasury is not receiving any moneys from these auctions. Even the licensees, such as Nextwave, that violated the law are not being required to make payments. This is a complete disregard for the law. This is nothing more than an effort to prop up this charade that auctions are good. Look at the case of Nextwave. This company bid several billions of dollars for licenses nationwide. When it came time to file complete documentation of their financial backing, the FCC found that this company was in violation of the foreign ownership limits of the Communications Act. To its credit, the FCC issued an order requiring Nextwave to divest itself of certain foreign financial commitments and come into compliance with the law. Now, several months later, Wall Street is still showing no confidence in these wireless ventures, so Nextwave has been unable to raise any capital. So, what does the FCC do? The FCC could not afford another embarrassment on the heels of the April fiasco. So the FCC simply waves its previous order and says, don't worry Nextwave, you are in violation of the law but there are more important issues involved here--we must continue the charade that the auctions are working. How can an agency of this Government be so cavalier in its execution of the law is beyond me. Clearly, it pays to be perceived as being too big a player that the FCC cannot let the company go under. Tell that to Rocky Mountain Solutions and Carolina PCS. Where was the FCC's consistency in applying the law here? Rocky Mountain Solutions and Carolina PCS had difficulty in raising capital just as the other licensees. Were they in violation of the foreign ownership limits of the law. The answer is ``no.'' Were they a small company and not perceived as a big player? The answer is ``yes.'' Where's the consistency? The FCC held to a strict interpretation of their own auction rules--there was no statutory violation--in denying Rocky Mountain Solutions and Carolina PCS request for more time. When a large company violates the law, there is always a creative interpretation of the law in order to keep up the charade. How can we have any confidence in the results of these auctions? News reports also indicate that the Department of Justice is investigating collusion and illegal bidding practices in some of the auctions. Obviously, some of the potential bidders think the auctions can be fixed as easily as the budget assumptions. The Treasury is not going to get the money CBO had projected. The budget cannot be balanced in this way. Why does the Budget Committee and CBO continue to keep their heads stuck in the sand. How can CBO justify not $26.3 billion in light of these recent events? The auctions are not the solution the rhetoric holds them out to be. Clearly the Budget Committee and CBO must have budget blinders on. Their denial of these recent events is further evidence that there is no integrity to these numbers. Just look at a breakdown of the budget assumptions and the problems with each item. Auction of the returned analog spectrum: The budget proposal requires an auction of 78 MHz of analog spectrum in 2002 with a mandatory return of the analog spectrum in 2006. CBO scores the analog auction at $5.4 billion. There are many practical problems involved here. First, will there really be an interest in this auction when the winning bidders will not have access to the spectrum for at least 4 years? What about possible delays that may occur from zoning ordinances and tower construction problems? In addition, there remains the question of whether there will be widespread demand for digital TV. Auction of 36 MHz of spectrum from CH.60-69: This spectrum was originally set aside for the transition to HDTV. No one knows if the FCC plan will actually work. All we have if a computer model from the FCC. All indications are that the FCC'S table of allocations will be challenged at the FCC and possibly in the courts. The budget deal will enshrine the FCC'S plan before we know its implications and possibly foreclose revisions to the FCC'S plan. Such a result would be unacceptably shortsighted. It is highly unlikely this proposal will result in a free and clear nationwide block of spectrum by 2002. Spectrum penalty: The Budget Committee Assumes $2 billion from a penalty fee that would be levied against those entities who received ``free'' spectrum for advanced, advertiser-based television services, but failed to utilize it fully. This is the most incredulous proposal of all. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorized the FCC to assess fees on a broadcaster's flexible use of the spectrum--if the broadcaster elects to offer additional services in addition to its free over-the-air programming. CBO staff has no basis to score this provision. There is no evidence in the record to assume the broadcasters will be capable of offering a subscription-based service by 2002. Auction of additional 120 MHz: CBO assumes $9.7 billion but where's the spectrum coming from? How can they justify it when the recent auction raised only $13 million when CBO had scored it at $2.9 billion? Auction 800 and 888 numbers: Here's a small business tax if you ever saw one. The administration's proposal is simply unrealistic. Large companies will simply outbid all the small players and warehouse popular numbers. Furthermore, the FCC does not have sole jurisdiction of toll free numbers. The United States participates with Canada in the North American numbering plan.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and the distinguished Chair. No one is more qualified to comment upon the distinguished service of the senior Senator from South Carolina than Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and certainly no one is more eloquent in this U.S. Senate. I thank him for his very generous remarks relative to me, but more particularly the comments relative to Senator Thurmond, because he deserves them. I like work, Mr. President, and no one works harder than Strom Thurmond. I love the State of South Carolina, and no one loves South Carolina more than Strom Thurmond. I love this country, and of course no one loves the United States more than Strom Thurmond. My senior Senator is the epitome of Robert E. Lee's comment that the most sublime word in the English language is duty. He is the living example of that particular admonition. The fact is that he has done his duty here for the people of the State of South Carolina and this country over the many, many years because he is the greatest disciplinarian I have ever met. He is totally disciplined with respect, not just to his physical being, which has gotten him 94 years, but more particularly his disciplined service and loyalty to his State and country. I, too, want to recognize on Sunday he will have most deservedly broken the all-time record for length of service in this U.S. Senate. It will not be the first time the Senator has broken an all time Senate record. We all know he holds the record for the longest extended debate. I know others are waiting. They have very generously yielded to me, so I will not attempt to break that record now. However, I will have more to say about Senator Thurmond's record at another time, but I know everyone is interested in hearing from our senior Senator. Let me just say, the greatest privilege for this junior Senator has been to serve under this senior Senator for 30-some years.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand the agreement has been made.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Texas. I ask unanimous consent amendments 302, 303, 304, 305, and 306 be called up and set aside.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understood from the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee I have 30 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that I have 30 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair. Right to the point, here is the concurrent resolution. You will not find in this document anywhere a balanced budget. Everyone is running hither and yon: ``Balanced budget, balanced budget.'' The truth is, if you look on page 5, you have the fiscal year debt to the year 2001 and for the year 2002, the fiscal year debt there going up to $172 billion. Actual deficit, without the use of the trust funds, without looting all the pension funds, there is $172 billion. This increases the debt each year every year for 5 years, whereby the interest costs on the debt is a billion a day. We have spending on autopilot of $1 billion a day for absolutely nothing. Not for children. Not for highways. Not for research. Not for foreign aid. Not for defense. We have total waste. We have a cancer and it ought to be removed. My particular amendment says do away with the tax cuts in this instrument; do away with the spending increases, the President's initiatives. We are on course for a balanced budget by the fiscal year 2007. Truth in budgeting is the question put before us.