Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. You said vote at 8 o'clock when I left the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this amendment does away with the sweetheart deal that will continue to increase the deficit instead of decreasing the deficit that current budget laws allow. We have had 5 years of decreasing deficits. This amendment continues the decrease of the deficits and actually puts us on a steady path of a balanced budget with no deficit whatsoever by the year 2007. I measure my comments and words because we have been engaged in an outrageous charade for 15 years now. I speak advisedly having been on the Budget Committee since its institution and as a former chairman of the Budget Committee. That is one of the reasons I wanted to try to cooperate with the distinguished chairman because he has a tremendous burden of moving this bill along. It was not my intent to hold the legislation up, but to bring into sharp focus the situation we have created for the American people. I supported and worked on a balanced budget in 1968 with the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. We did not have a Budget Committee. We called over to the White House to ask President Lyndon Johnson if we could cut another $5 billion so that we could make sure that we had a balanced budget. And he said, ``cut it.'' Mind you me, Mr. President. We had the war in Vietnam: guns. We had the Great Society: butter. Guns and butter. President Lyndon Baines Johnson was awfully sensitive about paying the bill. Wherein, we have no idea in this particular budget resolution of paying the bill. It is a sweetheart resolution, much like we had back in 1985. In 1985, the Republicans, to their credit, brought former Senator Pete Wilson to the floor in great pain. Senator Wilson had had an appendectomy, and they brought him in at 1 o'clock in the morning on a stretcher, and they voted to freeze spending, Social Security, and the other particular matters at the time. We went over early the next morning to see President Reagan. At that particular time, President Reagan said, ``Now, gentlemen, before we start''--we were all gathered around the Cabinet table --he said, ``I want to tell you, I had a little visit from the Speaker last evening, Speaker O'Neill.'' And we went outside there, you see right underneath that tree, and we had a little toddy, and we talked along, and we finally agreed. The Speaker said, ``I'll take your defense if you take my Social Security entitlements.'' I can see Senator Dole now. He threw down the pencil on the Cabinet table and he said it was a whole waste of time. We faced the fire. We did the job that was necessary. So did Senator Domenici. He remembers it. So there was a swap. Now, here 12 years later in 1997, we have a swap. President Clinton says, ``I'll take your tax cuts if you take my spending increases.'' And then everybody races around and hollers ``balanced budget.'' But folks, there is no balance in this budget. Like Patrick Henry might have said, ``But as for me, give me either a balanced budget or give me a freeze.'' Let me show you exactly what is going on here. What we have here are the actual budget realities. And underneath budget realities you can see, Mr. President, the budgets for every President, from Truman right on through President Clinton. You see the United States budget, the borrowed trust funds in this particular column, what they call the ``unified deficit,'' which is the greatest deception of all. For years we have been acting like ``unified'' meant ``net.'' Necessarily, the Government has income. It also has spending. And the inference is this is a net deficit after you take it all in. Absolutely false. The real actual deficit is really listed in this column, because this one here borrows the money and loots the trust funds. We have been looting the Social Security trust fund, as of last year, $550 billion; by 1997, the end of this fiscal year, September 30, it will be $629 billion; and under this budget resolution they take another practically $500 billion, half a trillion bucks to $1.095 trillion. They say, ``Oh, watch out here in the next century with the baby boomers. The baby boomers are coming. We used to have five or six workers per recipient or retiree. We're only going to have one worker per retiree.'' Do not watch the baby boomers in the next century. Watch the adults on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Watch the adults that are looting the fund. We are causing the deficit. And it is not any charismatic formula that changes now or in the next century. Incidentally, I voted and will continue to support Senator Kerrey on doing something about entitlements. I am not messianic that you cannot touch entitlements. I voted already with the Danforth-Kerrey solution last Congress. But be that as it may, we are using $1.095 trillion from the Social Security trust fund. We have been looting it. After 5 years, the military retirees fund will owe $173 billion and the government will say they ought to start contributing more. If there is any military retiree within the sound of my voice, watch out, because they are already doing this with civilian retirement funds. We have a full $422 billion surplus, and they are saying we have to increase the contribution. Why? If you increase the contribution it goes to the deficit, not civilian retirement. It is the same with unemployment compensation and the highway trust fund. We are using $40 billion from the highway trust fund. I have been trying to get funding for a bridge in South Carolina. You can build a bridge in every one of the 50 States with the money we are using to reduce the deficit. We are going to continue the airport tax to make way for a net tax cut. So we continue this tax for all the air travelers, but this money does not go to airports. It goes to reduce the deficit. It takes unmitigated gall to extend the airport tax, and then put it toward the deficit. In fact, you don't put it all toward the deficit. Some of it is put toward a tax cut for inheritance taxes or capital gains taxes. And everybody traveling in an airplane wonders why the planes are bumping into each other in the sky and the airport radar is broken down and communications go out and everything else--remember that we are solving the deficit in Washington. We are giving them a unified deficit instead of an actual deficit. So turning to the resolution itself, Mr. President, I want you to show me in this document I hold in my hand--Calendar 55, Senate Concurrent Resolution 27--where it says the budget is balanced. Do not give me this nonsense about the conversation that is in the committee report. That is a farce. Look at the actual law, the actual resolution that we are going to pass. If you can find in here, by way of language that there is a balanced budget by the year 2002, I will jump off the Capitol dome. I made that particular charge 4 years ago with the chairman of the Budget Committee, and I have not had to jump yet. Why? Just turn to page 2, line 23, under the heading of deficits. ``For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution'' it says, deficit for fiscal year 2002--$108.7 billion. Then turn the page and get the actual deficit. That only counts under the law of section 13301 about Social Security. But you see, you have all of the other trust funds in there. Anytime you want to add up the annual deficit, just subtract the annual increase of the debt from the present year. In other words, you go here to page 5 and you will find that we have a debt of $6,301,200,000,000 in 1997 but then for the fiscal year 2002 the debt has gone up to $6,473,500,000,000, a deficit of 172 billion bucks. Why did they have to borrow? Because that is what the deficit is. Now you can see from this other chart that the deficit this year is $180 billion. That is after 5 years of deficits going down. Under this budget resolution, deficits go up in 1998, 1999, and the year 2000. They go way up. They do not go down. Just look at the figures. So after 5 years, instead of a deficit of $180 billion, we will have a deficit of $172 billion. That is, if everything goes right. And then it is still back-end loaded, Mr. President. 72 percent of the spending cuts occur in the last 2 years. It is back-end loaded, as usual, and the back-end loaders will say that those Congresses can do it in the year 2001 and 2002. In any event, the deficit comes out $172 billion. That is according to the Committee's facts and figures. What we have to do--and that is why I proposed this amendment--is see if we can just take the entire spending cuts and tax increases and just eliminate them. I want to be realistic. I would like to do away with the so-called spectrum auctions. These are totally out of the question. We got somebody to come in last year--and it was verified by the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission--and say that we can get $2.9 billion from this spectrum auction. We had a spectrum auction 6 months later and we got $13.1 million. This is the kind of extreme exaggerated figures we are dealing with. But aside from that, take all the figures in the work of the two Budget Committees and the agreement they have made. Eliminate the tax cuts and eliminate the spending increases--the Presidential initiatives--and steady as you go. If we can do that--that is what my amendment calls for--then you actually get a balanced budget. Government on a pay-as-you-go basis in fiscal year 2007. An honest budget. Truth in budgeting. Mr. President, we have had conscience. That is why we came back after the Reagan deal with Tip O'Neill. We came back in here and we passed Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. I got it through over on this side over the objection of the majority leader, the majority whip, and the chairman of the Budget Committee. I got 14 votes up and down, the majority of the Democrats joined with the Republicans, in 1985, for that initiative. We could develop that kind of initiative now, instead of this sweetheart deal. What good really has occurred as a result of the 1993 vote? Give President Clinton credit. And give this side of the aisle credit, because we could not get a single vote on that side of the aisle. They said they were going to hunt me down in the street and shoot me like a dog. Majority leader Dole said it would cause a recession and the world would end. I wish we had time to read those particular statements made by opponents of the 1993 plan. Be that as it may, it worked. And that is the first President that has come around here in the past 15 years, since we started that Reaganomics, and has lowered the deficit. To President Clinton's credit, he lowered the deficit in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and we are in the fifth year of lowered deficits, and this particular instrument asks us to go turncoat and start increasing spending so that we can give the rich a tax cut. Inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, and all of these other things. Somewhere, sometime, Mr. President, we have to tell the American people that we in the Congress have been giving them over 200 billion bucks a year in Government that we are not willing to pay for. We have been buying their votes. They are talking about campaign finance reform: it starts on the floor of the U.S. Senate here this evening. If you really want campaign finance reform, quit using the subterfuge to the taxpayers of America and offloading the debt to future years and vote to do away. Keep us on a steady course, because that is exactly what we need to do. We are moving this deficit over. I do not know if you can see this on the chart, come up here to President Kennedy. We had already had all the wars under President Kennedy, except the closing days of the war in Vietnam. We had Korea, the world wars, the Revolutionary War and everything else, and we only ran up a debt that cost us $9 billion in interest costs. Now, it is projected by CBO to be $359 billion. So you can see where we have come. We are spending $360 billion more--for what? For waste. The crowd that came to town to do away with waste, fraud, and abuse has caused the biggest waste of all. That $360 billion more we are spending is the biggest spending item; it is like taxes. It is almost $1 billion a day. We are sitting around here giving each other the good government award saying, ``heavens above, balanced budget, balanced budget, balanced budget,'' when we are increasing taxes, or the same as taxes, interest on the national debt, of $1 billion a day. Now Mr. President, let me just emphasize exactly the duplicitous conduct here of the Congress up here in Washington. Bob Reich, the Secretary of Labor, retired the other day and he wrote a book. I saw him on TV. He was proud of two things. He said, ``You know, we passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994, the Pension Reform Act of 1994.'' He said, ``In addition to getting the minimum wage, I am most proud of that Pension Reform Act because corporate America has to fully secure their pensions so the workers of America moving from one place to another are not going to lose their rights and their entitlements.'' Now what happens? Mr. President, I refer to the New York Times here just 10 some days ago, May 8, page 26: ``Former Star Pitcher Is Sentenced to Prison.'' Denny McLain, the former star pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, was sentenced today to eight years in prison and ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution for stealing from the pension plan of a company he owned. The two-time Cy Young Award winner, who was the last man to win 30 games in a season, and his business partner were convicted in December on charges that they had stolen $3 million from the pension fund of the Peet Packing Co., then used the money for company debts. . . .'' We make sure you get a criminal charge and a sentence, and a prison sentence if you steal from the fund, but up here in Washington, the same crowd that passed that, whoopee, there it is. We get the good government award. It is a wonderful thing. You can just steal from these funds; the money is there. I do not see how you could in good conscience come around here with this budget without getting ashes in your mouth. To say balanced budget when you know the instrument itself says we have a deficit of $108 billion. Look on page 4, you can see down there on line 23, the actual amount of $108 billion. Then you can see where they list the debt for each year. As it increased, you can find that the actual deficit in the fiscal year 2002 is 172 billion bucks. So after all of this work, we have come from $180 billion--Mr. President, I see the distinguished ranking Member looking at the chart. The actual deficit according for this year according to CBO is $180 billion, not $70 billion. They are bragging about $67 billion. They gave us a figure of $70 billion a couple days ago because we use $110 billion of the trust funds. We steal that money and give it to ourselves, saying we have the deficit down to $70 billion and it is actually $180 billion; and after 5 years under this resolution, by their own figures, it is estimated to be $172 billion. So, Mr. President, we have to stop the destruction of the economy of this country. It is a 1 percent drag on economic growth when you run these deficits and pay out all of this money when you don't pay for the Government you have. Here they have 12 million new jobs, low inflation, low interest rates, and the finest growth for 5 years in a row. If we can't stop look, listen, sober up, and begin to put this Government on a pay-as-you-go basis tonight and this week in Washington, DC, in this U.S. Congress, it is never going to happen. And somehow, somewhere, we have to get the free press, the media, to report the truth, because they continue to report misleading figures. They don't quote the actual deficit. All they have to do is read this bill. Find in here where they say they balance the budget in the year 2002. On the work sheet, they had the figures down here, Mr. President, of a $1 billion surplus. But when they put out the actual resolution, that is not the case. They hide that in the descriptive language. That is the way the system works. It is a cancer. We are spending more money on waste. Interest payments cannot build a school, a highway, and not 1 hour of research. There is no medical treatment. There is nothing for the children of America that we are all concerned about. There is nothing for Head Start, nothing for WIC, nothing for school construction. We could build all the new school buildings all over the country for $360 billion. That is how much we have increased our national interest payments with this extravagance and this charade. It is a fraud on the American people. The free press is supposed to keep us honest. They, as co- conspirators, unindicted, joined with us to defraud the American people. I hope we can vote for this amendment of mine this evening and stop the fraud and get back to truth in budgeting. It is not too traumatic. Everybody is doing fine this year. Just the other day, the Senate said rather than shut down the Government we could take this year's budget for next year. The mayor of any city in this situation would say, ``Let's not fire the policemen and firemen. We will just take this budget for the next year.'' A Governor of any State would say, ``Let's just take this year's budget for next year.'' We can save $50 billion by doing it. But we don't want to do that. We play this game. We exact this fraud on the American people. Somehow, somewhere it has to stop. I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished chairman of our Budget Committee and our ranking member. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask the clerk to report it.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I do.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President. The distinguished chairman said in an ideal world that trust funds would be off budget. We live in an ideal world with respect to Social Security. Section 13301, in accordance with the Greenspan commission recommendation--President George Herbert Walker Bush signed legislation on November 5, 1990 that put Social Security off budget. That is why, instead of a surplus in this document, you have a deficit of $108 billion. We didn't get the rest of the trust funds off budget like we should have. We should get the highways, airport, retirement trust funds, Medicare off budget. But this document uses the money on the deficit. You are allocating it to the deficit. So the ideal world would be truth in budgeting. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Larry Doby, originally of Camden, SC, who was the first African- American to play in the American League. Mr. Doby's contributions to baseball and the American cultural conscience are of ineffable importance. He exemplified grace under fire, showing tact, resilence, and dignity in the unforgiving arena of a segregated nation. In light of his personal qualities and his professional achievements, I ask that the following editorial from the Chronicle Independent be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: Larry Doby During this 50th anniversary of the desegregation of Major League Baseball, Jackie Robinson has again become a household name. Perhaps now more than ever, people--and not only baseball fans --are stopping to consider the true impact that Mr. Robinson had, not only as a baseball player but as a social pioneer. For indeed, that's what he was--a pioneer. When Brooklyn Dodgers owner Branch Rickey broke the color line by bringing Jackie Robinson up to the big leagues, he knew Mr. Robinson would face abuse. He also knew that the talented player had the character and the savoir faire to handle the situation. Somewhere lost in the shuffle has been Kershaw County's own Larry Doby, who became the first black player in the American League. Few people realize that Mr. Doby, who was born in Camden and moved to New Jersey after the death of his father, followed Mr. Robinson into the major leagues by only 11 weeks. As in other phases of U.S. history, we usually remember the first person to do something, but those who follow shortly thereafter often get forgotten. That's been the case with Mr. Doby. He was, after all, an excellent baseball player and athlete. He led the American League in home runs in 1952, and during a 13-year career, most of them with the Cleveland Indians, he batted .283 and made six consecutive American League all-star teams. Five times in a seven-season span, he drove in more than 100 runs. A player who posts those kinds of statistics today receives millions of dollars a year, but that wasn't the case back then. But Larry Doby was more than a great baseball player; just as Mr. Robinson did, he blazed a trail that made baseball at its highest level open to everyone, not just white players. And in doing so, he gracefully endured abuse that would be difficult to imagine today. It is only proper that Mr. Doby is finally receiving his due for his accomplishments. This year's all-star game will be dedicated to him, and the Indians will honor the 50th anniversary of his debut before their July 5 game against Kansas City. He is now special assistant to the president of the American League. Those who have reflected with Mr. Doby on his achievements, including the sports editor of this newspaper, have been impressed with his recall of the events of 50 years ago. Like Jackie Robinson, he struggled through a difficult time to open doors for all people. Baseball fans--and yes, Americans who really don't give much of a hoot for the national pastime--should pay tribute to Jackie Robinson this year, a man whose courage and talent have made him a household name. But at the same time, let those of us in Kershaw County not forget one of our own: Larry Doby, a true champion in every sense of the word.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am proud to join Senator Thurmond in introducing legislation to bring fairness to Federal transportation funding. This legislation would guarantee that the Federal Government would return to each State the same share of gas tax funds that it had paid into the transportation trust fund. In 1991, I voted against the current transportation law, known as ``ISTEA.'' Supporters advocated the legislation as a forward-looking consolidation of Federal highway programs, but the heart of the bill-- the way it distributed money--looked backward in every sense. It tightly tied each State's future funding to past funding levels. It used old census data. It used old formula factors which do not even pass the ``straight face'' test. As the GAO reported, ``the Congress elected not to change the basic formula structure'' and thus the key factors in the formula are ``irrelevant'' and ``divorced from current conditions.'' In other words, we are currently targeting more than $20 billion of taxpayer funds to the wrong places for the wrong reasons. South Carolina bears the brunt of this inequity. In 1995, South Carolina received only 52 cents back for each dollar it paid to the highway trust fund. Over the period of ISTEA, South Carolina received only 70 cents back on the dollar. Let me add that I am not unaware of the overall Federal funding situation in South Carolina. South Carolina gets back more Federal tax money than its citizens contribute. Mr. President, that is as it should be. We are one Nation, and some parts of the Nation have lower average incomes. That is no excuse for targeting highway funds in a way that an objective study found to be ``irrelevant'' and ``divorced from current conditions.'' It is rare that a $20 billion problem has a simple solution. I refer again to the independent assessment of the GAO, which said that basing Federal payments to States on the amounts States paid in would, would meet two major, commonsense objectives of any highway program: First, it would be a ``relatively simple and direct method of fund distribution.'' Second, it would ``tend to correlate highly with highway needs, particularly for major highways.'' Furthermore, the GAO found that basing funding on gas tax paid in would effectively kill two birds with one stone by accounting for highway needs and for equity between States with one formula factor. Mr. President, a program that does not target funds to today's needs, and which mires States and the Congress in arcane complexity, cries out for revision. The legislation we introduce here today is a good starting point to better address our Nation's highway needs. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am proud to join Senator Thurmond in introducing legislation to bring fairness to Federal transportation funding. This legislation would guarantee that the Federal Government would return to each State the same share of gas tax funds that it had paid into the transportation trust fund. In 1991, I voted against the current transportation law, known as ``ISTEA.'' Supporters advocated the legislation as a forward-looking consolidation of Federal highway programs, but the heart of the bill-- the way it distributed money--looked backward in every sense. It tightly tied each State's future funding to past funding levels. It used old census data. It used old formula factors which do not even pass the ``straight face'' test. As the GAO reported, ``the Congress elected not to change the basic formula structure'' and thus the key factors in the formula are ``irrelevant'' and ``divorced from current conditions.'' In other words, we are currently targeting more than $20 billion of taxpayer funds to the wrong places for the wrong reasons. South Carolina bears the brunt of this inequity. In 1995, South Carolina received only 52 cents back for each dollar it paid to the highway trust fund. Over the period of ISTEA, South Carolina received only 70 cents back on the dollar. Let me add that I am not unaware of the overall Federal funding situation in South Carolina. South Carolina gets back more Federal tax money than its citizens contribute. Mr. President, that is as it should be. We are one Nation, and some parts of the Nation have lower average incomes. That is no excuse for targeting highway funds in a way that an objective study found to be ``irrelevant'' and ``divorced from current conditions.'' It is rare that a $20 billion problem has a simple solution. I refer again to the independent assessment of the GAO, which said that basing Federal payments to States on the amounts States paid in would, would meet two major, commonsense objectives of any highway program: First, it would be a ``relatively simple and direct method of fund distribution.'' Second, it would ``tend to correlate highly with highway needs, particularly for major highways.'' Furthermore, the GAO found that basing funding on gas tax paid in would effectively kill two birds with one stone by accounting for highway needs and for equity between States with one formula factor. Mr. President, a program that does not target funds to today's needs, and which mires States and the Congress in arcane complexity, cries out for revision. The legislation we introduce here today is a good starting point to better address our Nation's highway needs. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, last Congress we were able to enact some important reforms to greatly improve access to health care for millions of Americans. The Kennedy-Kassenbaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act improved the insurance marketplace so workers with preexisting medical conditions or who were at risk of losing health insurance when they changed jobs are more likely to have coverage. We were successful because we applied certain principles learned in the experience with President Clinton's Health Care Security Act. In the Senate, we worked in a bipartisan manner to fix a targeted number of our Nation's problems in a way that does not completely overhaul our current health care system. Because we did not fix the whole system, there is still work to be done. Today, Senator Hutchinson and I are proposing the next step in an incremental approach. We hope that the Senate can continue to work in a bipartisan way to achieve additional reforms to improve our citizens' access to what many say is the finest health care system in the world--if you have a ticket to get in. The Expanded Portability and Health Insurance Coverage Act that we introduced yesterday focuses on improving the health insurance market place so that workers in small businesses and their families can enjoy the health benefits and freedom from fear of a catastrophic illness as employees of large businesses. Many of us are greatly concerned about the 40 million or so Americans who currently have no health insurance, 10 million of them children. Looking closely at the problem, you see that over 80 percent of those uninsured live in a family with an employed worker who is likely to work for a small employer or be self-employed. Only 26 percent of workers in companies of 10 or less employees get health insurance through their employer, while virtually all workers in Fortune 500 companies do so. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that, in order to get a handle on the problem of the uninsured, we have to address the health insurance marketplace for small employers. A recent study by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, entitled ``Small Business Problems and Priorities,'' ranked the cost of health insurance as the No. 1 problem that small businesses face today. The great majority of small business owners want to provide coverage for their workers and families but they do not have affordable coverage options currently available to them. Our bill seeks to address this problem by allowing small businesses to form multi-state purchasing groups under a single set of national rules. This is done through the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Such a change in law will make health insurance more affordable for small businesses in several important ways: First, it will lower the administrative costs of health care coverage for small employers, Second, it will give greater bargaining power to small employers so they can negotiate better deals with the health plans and providers, and Third, it will eliminate the need for small businesses to have to comply with some costly benefits mandated in some States. Administrative costs account for nearly 30 percent of health insurance premiums, so lowering administrative costs will result in decreased premiums. A study by the Congressional Research Service and the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives shows that the administrative costs of insurance for small employers are up to 30 percent higher than for large employers due to the fact that it costs insurers and health plans more to market to these small groups. The per-person cost of processing claims and the general management of benefits is also much higher. Costs are dramatically lower for larger groups. Allowing small employers to form large groups will result in lower administrative costs. The bill, in permitting the formation of multi-state purchasing groups under ERISA, will give small employers much greater purchasing power than they have under current law. It will be far easier and safer for the small businesses to self-insure through a purchasing group. Enabling small employers to do this will give the groups the opportunity to get better value for each health care dollar spent. They will be able to act like large employers and directly contract with health plans and providers. In negotiating with health plans and providers like larger companies, they will be able to actively negotiate lower prices in exchange for a large group of users. This will make health insurance more affordable. That mandated benefits significantly add to the cost of providing health insurance was documented in an August 1996 GAO Report, ``Health Insurance Regulation, Varying State Requirements Affect the Cost of Insurance.'' Also, a study by the NFIB Education Foundation shows that State-mandated benefits can add up to 30 percent to the cost of health insurance premiums. Essentially the bill levels the playing field so that small employers can operate health plans under the same set of rules as large employers. Allowing small businesses to operate under a single set of national rules will eliminate the need for such groups to have to comply with each State's list of rules regarding benefit packages, claims and solvency. Instead, the groups will need to follow one set of rules under the ERISA. The rules are changed so that consumer protections and safeguards will apply to these multi-state purchasing groups. For example, only a legitimate association that is certified by the U.S. Department of Labor could become a purchasing group. They are subject to strict standards concerning sponsor eligibility, nondiscrimination, fiduciary, solvency, reporting, disclosure and plan termination standards. States would be permitted to enforce these Federal standards. While it is difficult to predict exactly how much coverage will increase through this legislation, at a hearing held by the House Education and Workforce Committee last year, the National Business Coalition on Health and the National Association of Manufacturers predicted about 20 million uninsured adults and children could be covered as a result of this legislation. The Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that 55 percent of uninsured children have a parent who works full time for the entire year. So a great majority of the uninsured children are likely to benefit from this bill as well. And, the beauty of this legislation is that it enables millions of currently uninsured people to have health care through the private sector, so no new entitlements involving huge costs to the Government are involved. The Expanded Portability and Health Insurance Coverage Act gives us an opportunity to enact essential reform to strengthen our current health care system. It is an important step forward in the effort to find solutions to our Nation's health care problems and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have been able to work out an agreement that supports the amendment by Senator Murray and Senator Gorton. This amendment provides $7 million in emergency assistance to deal with the impact on northwest fisheries. Senator Murray has worked tirelessly on this issue. She has refused to take no for an answer. These northwest fishermen should know they have a champion here in Washington DC who really understands their industry. I know that from my work on this Appropriations Committee and from my service on the authorization committee that oversees the National Marine Fisheries Service. There are no free emergencies any more with this crowd. This particular amendment takes advantage of satellite procurement savings that can be achieved because of the particulars of how NOAA reimburses NASA. So it is fully offset. I truly appreciate the willingness of our chairman, Senator Stevens, and our subcommittee chairman, Senator Gregg, to work out a compromise that allows this assistance move forward. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me clarify what is happening in highway funds in this appropriations bill. This bill includes $139 million to correct an honest error at the Treasury Department. That error in 1994 rippled through the highway formula and cost South Carolina $9.2 million last year. Making whole all the states which lost funds requires $139 million, and I commend the Appropriations Committee for including these funds. The bill also includes another $794 million. The administration requested $318 million of these funds, and the rest were added by the Appropriations Committee. The administration requested the $318 million in what was really an erroneous attempt to correct the Treasury Department error I have mentioned. The rest of the funds--$475 million--have no relationship by any stretch of the imagination to the error we are supposedly correcting. They are simply added for some States that disagree with what current law provided them this year, and these States happen to be a majority in the Senate. In other words, today we are watching ``might make right'' in the allocation of highway funds. Senators Warner and Graham have made a proposal that is sensible, right, and in compliance with the highway law we are living under until a new reauthorization passes. They propose fixing the $139 million error, and then allocating the rest of the funds under current law. Mr. President, that is the right thing to do. The underlying issue here is a promise made in ISTEA to guarantee any State 90 percent of the funds it paid into the highway fund. This year--for the first time in the 6 years of ISTEA--keeping that promise requires us to trim the historical surplus that some States have long received in order to help a smaller number of States lose a little less. So the winner States are breaking the promise. They are a majority, and they do not want to guarantee 90 percent. Mr. President, we should debate the highway formula when reauthorization comes before the Senate. Until then, we should keep the promises made in 1991. We should also correct the error that everyone agrees occurred. I know where the votes are on this, but I want to set the record straight. Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Warner. First let me say that I believe that the appropriators have done an excellent job of providing much-needed relief for those States who have been devestated by floods and bad weather, including Ohio. I plan to support this emergency supplemental appropriations bill. However, I do have concerns about the way the supplemental Federal aid highway funds are appropriated. I appreciate the fact that the Appropriations Committee has provided highway obligational authority to States that had their fiscal year 1996 or 1997 limitations reduced as a result of an error by the Treasury Department in recording highway trust fund receipts in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. Ohio was affected by this, and I appreciate the fact that Ohio will be made whole by this emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I believe that the Committee has done the fair thing in this regard. I also am not opposed to the $475 million in additional authority that the committee has added in emergency transportation funds for this year. In Ohio, transportation funding seems to be an emergency need every single year. My concern is the fact that the Appropriations Committee has rewritten funding formulas contained in ISTEA in distributing this authority. When ISTEA was debated and passed, it was decided that in fiscal year 1997, States would receive a 90-percent return on the amount of Federal gas taxes paid by the State in the prior year. At the time, everyone knew that this would require so-called `donee' states to receive less Federal aid highway authority in fiscal year 1997 than they received in fiscal year 1996. ISTEA was approved this way for a reason. The appropriations process is not the time to change laws that don't suit our particular needs. If it were, donor States would have attempted to do this for the past 5 years. This year, Congress will once again debate Federal highway funding. The old formulas, hopefully, will be revised to treat States more fairly. As we debate that reauthorization bill in the Senate, we will all have a chance to make changes to current law that we feel are unfair. We should let that debate take its course. For the time being, the Senate should not circumvent current law. The Warner amendment provides the best way to distribute the additional authority included in this emergency supplemental--by formulas included under current law. It allows all States, not just donee States, to receive their proper share of the additional authority. It is the right thing to do, and that is why I support this amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my distinguished chairman, Senator Stevens.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the inspector general, the Department of Commerce, and the letter from Secretary Daley be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, when it comes to sampling, I think everyone should understand that we are very familiar with it. Almost every product put out by the census, or from data supplied by the Census Bureau is based on sampling. We quote the gross domestic product. The Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan and others use GDP and inflation statistics based on very small samples. The monthly unemployment rate that all the members listen for. Well that is based on sampling of some 60,000 household of the 115 million households in this Nation. That is less than 1 percent. And, with the full decennial census, the Bureau has been using sampling for the long form for almost 60 years. And if there is one group that really believes in sampling, it is Members of Congress. We come here with a poll taken, every one of us. And for a State my size with 3.5 to 4 million people, a sample of 870 to represent that number of people is readily considered authoritative. So we are doing the best and we are doing it professionally. I believe that we are on course now with this particular compromise. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my complete statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, what it allows is the Census Bureau to continue to plan to conduct a census that uses statistical sampling but the Congress under the leadership here of the distinguished Senator from Alaska, and our chairman and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction as the authorizing committee, can change that in the future after careful review and oversight. There is a deep misgiving among some of the Members with respect to any kind of taking of polls or handling of numbers or statistics particularly after somehow the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Department of Justice naturalized a million immigrants to be able to vote last November. And so it is natural that they wanted to make certain that the statistical sampling related to the year 2000 census be taken in a totally professional manner. We have it, we think, on course to be as professional as it can be. Ms. Riche and the professional staff at the Bureau of the Census are just outstanding. What the Members need to understand that what really occurred after the 1990 census was it became clear that all kind of undercounting and overcounting occurred, varying in areas. The undercount was especially severe among low-income people, minorities, and rural areas. Congress told the Census to find a way to conduct the next census in a more accurate way at less cost. The Census Bureau went to the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences, after a thorough study, says go ahead, send the forms out, which are really reported back about some 60 percent or so. We get another 30 percent by going around door to door, through telephone calls, and followup. That last 10 percent is next to impossible in some places to find, in the innercity, in the rural areas, and in areas with high native American populations. Some of the census takers themselves--we got some 300,000 earning around $13 an hour--they might get fatigued some afternoons or near a weekend, or not be willing to enter into some areas or buildings. The way it was handled in 1990, the followup was far too subjective. So the Academy of Sciences looked at, studied, and have had the best of minds in a bipartisan fashion--this has not been a partisan issue-- and they recommended that census find a new way to estimate those hard to reach populations. They told census to use the same statistical methodologies that the bureau uses for all its products that this Nation relies on. They recommended to go ahead with this kind of sampling advancing forward to take the census for fiscal year 2000. We really were disturbed in the Appropriations Committee that if we did not allow it to continue at this particular point--this is absolutely not final, of course--that we were going to set a course whereby we were going to have to spend another half a billion bucks trying to go door to door with the same ailments and disturbances and inaccuracies that we suffered back in the 1990 census. And we would end up not only paying more but getting back into court with lawsuits again and everything else of that kind. Mind you me, there is over $100 billion in Federal programs allocated according to this census data, the Members of the House of Representatives are apportioned according to this census, and we want to be as nonpartisan and as thorough and as scientific as we can possibly be in its taking. To the credit of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which is the authorizing committee, they have been working diligently on this issue. Our distinguished chairman, Senator Thompson of Tennessee, I have talked with him, and our ranking member, Senator Glenn. They have already experienced two hearings which have more or less confirmed that we are on course, but they have yet to finalize any action taken this particular year. So what we wanted to do at the moment in this particular emergency supplemental was not stop anything but express our outright concern that this particular census is not to be used politically. It has to be done professionally. I thank the distinguished chairman of our Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and his distinguished staff for going along working with the Department of Commerce and myself all last evening and this morning. I think this particular compromise here will allow us to continue on course but not lock in the short form irrevocably. Census can continue to do its planning and dress rehearsals to ensure that the next census is more accurate. With that said, I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished chairman, Senator Stevens, and myself, Senator Glenn, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Gregg, and others now have worked out the Department of Commerce compromise on the census. I have an amendment that reflects that compromise at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be in order and the clerk be allowed to report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Certainly. unanimous-consent agreement--amendment no. 54

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am fully aware that my colleague from Minnesota has made a motion to strike----