Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you go down each year and--incidentally, when I got here, in 1966, there wasn't any unified budget, or unified deficit, or unified surplus. There wasn't anything unified. There wasn't any in 1967, 1968, and 1969. When they started that under President Johnson, they said President Johnson started it as a gimmick. If you look at these figures, you will find out that President Johnson did have a surplus and a balanced budget--I voted for it; I was here then--and it did not use Social Security or any of the other trust funds. Then, Mr. President, as I was saying, there is a table here of the different amounts used in this so-called unified budget, or deficit. In the year 1997, there was $78 billion in Social Security moneys to reduce the size of that deficit; in 1998, $81 billion; in 1999, $88 billion; in 2000, $94 billion; in the year 2001, $98 billion; and in 2002, $104 billion. That is a total of $543 billion. Now, I am a budgeteer. I am on the Budget Committee. I go in the room and I say: Well, now, are we going to really look at the debt and see if we've got this Government on a pay-as-you-go program, or are we going to play the gamesmanship? Oh, they have reporters running all around the world, to China, to find out whether or not they made a contribution in the Presidential election. But they don't have the integrity to report the facts, truth in budgeting. The discipline is broken. I go in as a budgeteer and you say: Wait a minute, you have $543 billion, a half trillion bucks, over the next 6 years, and if I don't spend it for what I want, that fellow over there is going to spend it on defense; this one over here is going to spend it on foreign aid; the next one is going to spend it on the national parks. I might as well get my money to take back home. There is no discipline. There is no trust. Obviously, the public has heard us talk ad nauseam about deficits and balancing budgets. And like old Tennessee Ernie sang, ``Another day older and deeper in debt.'' We have these polls taken to see whether or not they trust us. I hope they don't because we are not giving them the truth in budgeting. I am trying my dead-level best here to list these amounts. I ask unanimous consent that this particular table be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, 98 Senators in the U.S. Senate agreed with me. I will tell you, Mr. President, it was really interesting because I have never seen such a thing occur. We all went home in those campaigns and we talked about how we had finally put it into law. It was on November 5, 1990, that George Herbert Walker Bush signed that into law. That is the formal section of the Budget Act, section 13301. It says, ``Thou shalt not use Social Security surpluses to obscure the size of the deficit.'' We wanted to have truth in budgeting. When I say 98 Senators, I counted up about 33 that are still here in the U.S. Senate that were there in 1990 voting for this. Right to the point, here is the provision in the statute. It says: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, or as outlays, or as receipts, or deficits, or surplus for the purpose of the budget of the U.S. Government as submitted by the President, or for the purposes of the congressional budget, or for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. When we passed that, the distinguished Senator--and there is no one I have greater respect for, and he is my friend, and I am his friend-- came on the floor yesterday, the chairman, the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and he came on the floor yesterday late in the evening, and it is one of the things that prompted my appearance here this afternoon. Let me quote from page S. 1294 of the Congressional Record of February 12: Frankly, I want to make sure that everybody knows that the best use of the word gimmick for anything going on on this floor has to do with the gimmick that some on that side of the aisle are using when they speak of taking Social Security off budget so you will assure Social Security's solvency and the checks. That is a gimmick of the highest order. For you do that, and there is no assurance that Congress will not spend the trust funds surpluses for anything they want. It is no longer subject to any budget discipline. It is out there by itself. Senator Domenici is totally mistaken. Let me quote the real Senator Domenici. Here is the report, and I refer to the Social Security Preservation Act of July 10, 1990, and the additional views of Mr. Domenici. I ask unanimous consent that the entirety be included in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Lawrence Gressette, Jr., is well known to all of us in South Carolina and we salute him as he retires on February 28 as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of SCANA Corp., in Columbia, SC. Excellence is a Gressette family tradition. Lawrence Gressette learned much at the knee of his father, Marion, the esteemed attorney and South Carolina State senator. He once told Lawrence, ``Things must not only be right but should also look right.'' Lawrence Gressette has long adhered to his father's sage advice. In college, he not only played football for Clemson University, he earned a football scholarship. He was so liked and respected by his classmates that they elected him student body president. At the University of South Carolina Law School, he finished first in his class. Upon graduation, he joined in his father's practice and earned a reputation as a solid litigator. It was in working alongside his father that Lawrence Gressette became involved with utility regulatory work. The powers that were at South Carolina Electric and Gas were so impressed with his talents that they persuaded him to become a senior vice president in 1983 and executive vice president the following year. In 1990, John Warren retired as CEO of SCE&G's parent company, SCANA, and the board of directors tapped Lawrence to fill the top spot. Through vision and consistent leadership, he has guided SCANA into a successful, cohesive commercial force --a goliath of energy-related and communications businesses. Fortunately for all of us, he has shared his talents with his community as well. Some of his achievements include: chairman of the board of trustees for Clemson University, trustee of the Educational Television Endowment of South Carolina, member of the steering committee of the South Carolina Governor's School of the Arts, and chairman of the United Way of the Midlands. Through it all, he has been blessed with the love and support of his wife, Felicia, and their three children. Although Lawrence will be sorely missed at SCANA, I am confident that he will continue in his role of excellent public service and will hand down this Gressette legacy to his four grandchildren.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Berlin George Myers is dedicated to his hometown of Summerville, SC. His life has revolved around an eight-square block area in the heart of this town also known as Flowertown in the Pines. In this small area, he grew up and raised his own children and today, continues to run his business and govern the town. Mayor Myers' first public office was membership on town council in 1965. His vote returns were the highest ever achieved by a town official and as a result, he became Mayor pro tem. History repeated itself in the following elections and Mayor Myers is further distinguished by having served on every town committee. Under Councilman Myers, many civic improvements were made: a new town hall and a new fire station were built, an extensive paving program enacted, town clean-up was given a high priority and annexation began in earnest. In June 1972, the incumbent Mayor Luke died and Berlin Myers stepped in to fill the remainder of his term. Four months later, he won his own election and every one since with a large majority of the vote. During Mayor Myers' tenure, Summerville's population has grown from 3,700 to approximately 25,000. Under Mayor Myers, Summerville's Public Safety Department has combined police and fire departments, telecommunications--including an enhanced 911 system--and municipal court in a single headquarters building complex. He helped plan and proudly presided over the ribbon cutting for a perimeter road around Summerville--named the Berlin G. Myers Parkway by an act of the South Carolina legislature. In 1994, under his direction, the 27-year-old townhall was renovated and expanded. His tireless, around-the-clock leadership during 1989's Hurricane Hugo put Summerville back in operation quickly and smoothly. The order and organization for which Summerville is renowned founded his business, the Berlin G. Myers Lumber Co., which in 1989 celebrated its 50th year. There's neither a piece of lumber nor a piece of paperwork out of place in this operation. He began working in his Uncle Allen's sawmill and small retail outlet after school and weekends when he was 10 years old. After graduating from high school in 1939, he took over the latter. Mayor Myers is past president of the Carolinas Tennessee Building Materials Association and has served on committees on both the regional and national chapters. In 1989, Mayor Myers was awarded the Order of the Palmetto, the highest civilian accolade the State of South Carolina can bestow. He keeps the same rigorous schedule he has all of his adult life, arriving first at the lumber yard every morning, holding regular townhall work hours, talking with school children about the town's history, and actively participating in Summerville Baptist Church. Mayor Berlin Myers is a devoted husband and is the father of four children and three grandchildren. In this, his 80th year, his mayoral tenure has reached a quarter of a century, the longest in Summerville's history. His postion is unpaid and he says that he sees politics as service to his town, ``It's a way to give back to my community which has given me so much.'' Summerville's sesquicentennial takes place this year, 1997, and you can believe that Mayor Berlin Myers will be leading the parade.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Bernice Scott, of the Richland County Council, is a philanthropist in the truest sense of the word. Bernice is generous with heart, time, talent, and money and employs these resources on behalf of the community and in particular for those less fortunate. Her largess is well known and more than one child remembers her for the gift of shoes or school supplies that made it possible to attend school. Each winter she hosts a dinner for senior citizens in need and every spring, in her mother's memory, she throws a banquet for the entire community. Bernice's efforts on behalf of individuals and the community at large is legendary. Always one to go the extra mile, Bernice has driven to Washington and slept in her car in the battle for a sewer for a small community. She has led countless countywide efforts to improve roads, storm water drainage, sewer, and water conditions. Her constituents have full faith in her ability to make things happen. Whether saving the Lower Richland Rural Health Center, improving recreation facilities for children, or turning out the vote with her ``Wrecking Crew'', Bernice Scott is always sure to be in the thick of things. Bernice grew up the 7th of 11 children on a family farm. She is married to Deacon Thomas Gilmore and is the mother of two children and three grandchildren. First elected to county council in September 1988, Bernice Scott is the first African-American to chair Richland County Council. In addition to her duties on county council, she has held the positions of assistant to the court administrator, county ombudsman, records clerk in the county treasurer's office, tax collector and assistant to the clerk of council for Richland County. She is a member and a deaconess of Mount Nebo Baptist Church in Gasden, SC. A short list of her civic activities include: member of the Central Midlands Regional Planning Council, the HOME Committee, vice-chair of the Transportation Committee, member of the Richland County Administration and Finance Committee, member of the Soil and Water Conservation Board, and chairperson of the board of directors for Richland Community Health Care Association. Bernice Scott is the embodiment of public service at its very best.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to restore the constitutional balance to our trade policy and preserve the Congress' constitutional obligation to regulate foreign commerce. The bill I introduce requires that before a trade agreement negotiated under the auspices of the World Trade Organization is accorded the force of law, it must be ratified by the Congress. It is a simple bill, but I believe it protects a fundamental principle of our democracy, the separation of powers.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend----

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield back.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, 4 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. If my colleague would yield.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas has been so laudatory, I think the Record should show that Rodney Slater is a Democrat. The fact of the matter is, he has strong, strong bipartisan support because he truly comes as an appointment, not on account of the color of his skin, but the content of his character. As the distinguished Senator pointed out, he started in the most humble Mississippi Delta section of Arkansas, attended the public schools, graduated, then, from Eastern Michigan University, and then from the University of Arkansas School of Law at Fayetteville. Working as a commissioner on the Arkansas Highway Commission, he then was able to serve as its chairman and came here just almost 4 years ago as the Federal Highway Administrator. You only have to go to Northridge, CA, to ask how he did. Right after that earthquake out in California, Mr. Slater cut through all the bureaucracy. His actions there, instituted immediately, facilitated the provision of alternative transportation, and then Mr. Slater's FHWA allowed the repair and rebuilding of the damaged highways out there in record time. He has become familiar with all modes of transportation, working at DOT--the civilian airline system; all the railroads, including the Nation's rail passenger service, Amtrak; the water borne transportation system, and everything else. So he is totally familiar with it. I don't know any better compliment than that related by my distinguished colleague from Arkansas. Mr. Slater appeared with the strongest bipartisan support of any nominee I have seen in my time up here, and I think he deserves it. I have watched him over the past 4 years, as I have watched other Federal Highway Administrators, but none has done a more resourceful job, a more understanding job, and a more effective job than Rodney Slater of Arkansas. It's quite a journey from those rural roots to being chairman of the Arkansas State Highway Department to administering the Nation's highway program and now, I hope, to Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Slater's journey began with a loving family and community, and we should, as he does, pay tribute to them. They instilled in him the thirst for education, the drive to succeed at every job, and the determination to be fair in whatever he did. These are qualities that we should look for in every nominee for every office. But in addition to Mr. Slater's personal story there are several other excellent reasons for confirming Mr. Slater in this very important Cabinet position. He has high-level experience in transportation dating back to 1987. Mr. Slater has served as a member of the Arkansas State Highway Commission and later as the commission chairman. In these positions he received high praise for his ability to bring together diverse interests in order to get the job done. Part of Mr. Slater's success is attributed to his willingness to listen to disparate points of view and a desire to learn from others. Mr. Slater was appointed to the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] by President Clinton in 1993. As Administrator, Mr. Slater managed a $20 billion annual budget in an agency with 3,500 employees and an office in every State. In that capacity, he impressed both local officials and Members of Congress with his ability to work within the system to get things done. During the last 4 years the FHWA under Mr. Slater has expanded our Nation's highways and linked isolated communities to new jobs and opportunities. One important example of this nominee's abilities is the response of the FHWA to the devastating earthquake that took place in Northridge, CA. Mr. Slater received high marks from those who witnessed his ability to cut redtape and lessen response time so that critical funds would be released promptly to the communities hit by the earthquake. His adept maneuvering through the bureaucracy resulted in the provision of alternate transportation and the rebuilding of vital highways in record time. In nominating Mr. Slater, President Clinton said: ``* * * he was recommended by more people from more places in more ways for this job than any person for any position I have ever seen.'' Nothing is more true. Look at the Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who have supported this nomination. During the Commerce Committee hearing on his nomination, Mr. Slater was endorsed by Senators Warner, Bumpers, and Hutchinson and Congressmen Hutchinson and Berry. That's a good cross-section of support--the chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and four members of the Arkansas congressional delegation, two from each party. He has also received high praise from our House colleagues. Congressman Wolf, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, called the nomination ``a natural.'' House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster said he considers the nominee one who ``can work well with both parties.'' Mr. Slater's nomination is not just endorsed within the Washington Beltway. Indeed, the transportation industry uniformly praised Slater both for his abilities as the FHWA Administrator and for his interest in learning the promises and prospects of the other modes of transportation. From my perspective as Senator from South Carolina, I am very pleased to have a nominee who has a firm grasp of the highway system that is so vital to my State. Moreover, in Mr. Slater we have the opportunity to confirm as Secretary of Transportation a man who knows the value of the other modes of transportation as well: The Nation's civil aviation system, Amtrak, and the country's waterborne transportation system. With Mr. Slater, we will have a Secretary who knows that we must rebuild the Nation's infrastructure if we are to grow and prosper in the 21st century. He is a man who believes, as I do, that the number of ships that steam into our ports means little if road or rail transport is insufficient to speed the cargo on its way to points inland; and that increasing tourism in Charleston or Boston or New Orleans won't matter unless trains and planes are available to bring the tourists to those cities. He is also a man who is well aware that a carefully constructed reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA] can give us the boost we need toward the year 2000. We in South Carolina have worthwhile intermodal projects that need funding. These intermodal projects will relieve choke points in the States, giving us a start on the seamless transportation network that ISTEA envisions. An example of one of our most pressing issues for ISTEA is the long overdue replacement of the bridges over the Cooper River in Charleston. These bridges are essential to the movement of cargo to and from the port. In conclusion, Mr. Slater has earned my support and my vote because I am impressed with the intelligence, dedication, and ability I believe he will bring to this job. I urge my colleagues to join me in confirming this excellent appointment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I had the opportunity at the NATO conference in November, as the ranking member and former chairman of State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations, to spend an entire morning with Ambassador Harriman going over her particular needs, her budget. I was really impressed with the overall view she had of the needs of the Department of State, particularly her grasp of bringing the Department up to date in the area of communications, upgrading its computers, and other technological issues. I could tell that she understood, after we had some time together, that the lack of real financial support for the Department of State has been at the executive branch, not here in the Congress. I have fought for many, many years to try to get the needed increases for the endeavors of the State Department. And now with the fall of the wall, defense is not our first line of defense. The State Department is. We are trying to sell capitalism. We are trying to sell democracy and individual rights the world around. And that is the province of our Department of State, which has been cut back. We have been closing consulates and closing embassies. The record will show that the distinguished Ambassador had really been to the President on these issues, and for the first time President Clinton has made a substantial request for an increase for the Department of State. There will be many kudos, well deserved, for Ambassador Harriman, but I think she was the one who finally got the message to the executive branch as to what was needed at the State Department. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Brookings Institute Council on Foreign Relations study recently published on the needs of the State Department and the diplomacy of the U.S. Government be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The report is endorsed by former Secretaries of State and those in the know both, in a bipartisan fashion. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to restore the constitutional balance to our trade policy and preserve the Congress' constitutional obligation to regulate foreign commerce. The bill I introduce requires that before a trade agreement negotiated under the auspices of the World Trade Organization is accorded the force of law, it must be ratified by the Congress. It is a simple bill, but I believe it protects a fundamental principle of our democracy, the separation of powers.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the problem of China is most frustrating. I guess the question is, how best do we extend freedom and individual rights in a country of that kind? It is very difficult for a nation with a 220-year history to tell a culture and nation of 3,000 to 5,000 years of age what to do and how to do it, particularly a country, Mr. President, of 1.2 billion. If you have ever dealt with China, you understand immediately that human rights begins, first, with hunger. That is the first human right in the People's Republic. They have to feed 1.2 billion. The second human right is that of housing. The third human right is perhaps education. The fourth human right is ours--one man, one vote. If you start off on the other end of the spectrum, one man, one vote, you have chaos. I say that advisedly. I wish I had the time as a southern Governor, because I stand with pride--no life was lost, no one was hurt during my 4 years. I integrated, as the distinguished president pro tempore's alma mater, Clemson University, in a peaceful fashion. We have a track record. We know how you have to handle crowds and make sure no one is hurt. That approach to China with respect to commercialization and capitalization, I think, is going to be better than confrontation. It is good to come and say we will not trade with you unless you do A, B, and C; however, the others are going to trade with them. It is a nonstarter. It just will not work. The Germans, the French, and the Japanese are in there like gangbusters, and we cannot use that particular tool. The bottom line, you can look at democratic India and its approach and you can look at the People's Republic and you may reason that perhaps the People's Republic approach will extend more housing, more feeding, more education in the next 10 or 20 years than the democratic India. It is going to be interesting to follow. But mind you me, China is there. They feel very strongly with respect to Taiwan, to Hong Kong and those possessions that have been taken from them, and their stand has been recognized by us in our foreign policy. We have to be more realistic in its treatment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Michael Jordan makes his money in Chicago, but he spends it in South Carolina. We welcome him down there regularly. I think he is a property owner by now in Hilton Head. I will check it out, because that would be one of the few votes I could get on Hilton Head. Mr. President, the appointment of William Daley to head the Department of Commerce comes at a critical juncture in our history. We have emerged triumphant from our long struggle against the forces of tyranny and totalitarianism. Our victory in the cold war was secured through the commitment and sacrifice of the American people, who willingly subordinated their economic interests to sustain the alliance against Soviet expansionism. It was access to the rich American market that enabled our allies to rise from the ashes and rebuild their economies. For four decades the American market absorbed the world's exports while our exporters confronted closed markets abroad. Our generosity has taken a tremendous toll on the American economy. For the past 20 years wages for the American worker have remained stagnant. The average American now earns 20 percent less today than he or she earned 20 years ago. The toll has been most devastating in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing now accounts for a mere thirteen percent of our GNP, half that of Germany or Japan. The most terrible price that we paid was the loss of 2 million manufacturing jobs, which were the backbone of the American economy. Having triumphed abroad it is now time to rebuild at home. Restoring the promise of America and rebuilding our economy will require the same commitment and sacrifice that won the cold war. The Commerce Department should be at the forefront of this effort. There are some, who in the name of budget discipline, call for the Department's elimination. In an era in which economic and national security are synonymous, eliminating the Commerce Department would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament. The budget will not be balanced by political gimmicks and symbolic gestures. Abolishing the Commerce Department will not make a dent in balancing the budget; what it will do is put us at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy. In today's new world economy American firms and American workers compete against foreign companies whose governments are allies of business, not adversaries. Where once we stood at the apex of the world economy, now no industry in America is immune from this intense foreign competition. In market after market, industry after industry, U.S. companies compete against foreign companies that are the beneficiaries of strategic alliances with powerful ministries of trade and industry. Those who believe that government has no role in supporting industry and American workers seek to rewrite history and ignore the realities of the new international competition. In the new global economy, the line between public sector and private sector is at times indistinct. Our competitors nurture industrial development through rigged capital markets, generous subsidies, infant industry protection, and favorable export incentives. The invisible hand of the free market did not develop Korea's world class semiconductor industry. Instead it was the iron fist of decrees laid down by Korea's Ministry of Trade, which kept out foreign competition unless they licensed technology to Korean companies. The iron fist was complemented by the largesse of Korea's Finance Ministry which provided low interest loans to foster the development of its industries. The invisible hand of the market did not create Airbus, nor does it guide the development of the faster growing economies in the Pacific rim, which are following the Japanese model of development. The irony is that the market alone was not responsible for the development of our own industrial base. From Alexander Hamilton's ``Report on Manufactures,'' to the revolution in information technology initiated through research conducted by the Department of Defense, our economic strength has been fortified by a symbiotic relationship between government and the private sector. The strong Commerce Department is an essential prerequisite for competing in the global economy. The Commerce Department, through its technology administration, plays a crucial role in developing the critical technologies of the future. Although the National Institute for Standards and Technology [NIST] accounts for only 1 percent of the U.S. research and development budget--it is the principal program dedicated to fostering critical technologies that have a commercial application. U.S. companies face great pressure to deliver short run returns for the fund managers who dominate America's capital markets. As the Wall Street Journal noted, ``the biggest U.S. companies have cut back sharply on research into `basic science' to pursue short term goals * * *.'' This alarming trend did not go unnoticed by the Council on Competitiveness, which noted, ``Long-term investments rates as a percentage of GDP are falling just when Asian and European competitors are ramping up their R&D programs.'' This is why it is crucial that we maintain our Advanced Technology Program. It enables industry and government to join forces in carrying out broad-based, long-term, peer- reviewed projects that could have large payoffs down the road. Eliminating the Government's role in technological development will consign our economy to second-rate status. Furthermore, it would allow Asians and Europeans to dominate the emerging technologies which will create the jobs of the future. Not only does the Commerce Department play a critical role in fostering technology, it plays an equally important role in protecting U.S. industries from the predatory trade practices that have crippled many of our domestic industries. Vigorous enforcement of our antidumping laws is crucial to maintaining our standard of living. Far too often our competitors have hidden behind a citadel of protection in their home markets while simultaneously flooding our economy with illegally dumped products. A Commerce Department that aggressively enforces our trade laws will enable U.S. companies to sustain their investment in strategic technologies and keep jobs at home. Strengthening the Commerce Department will require a strong Secretary. Bill Daley fits that description. He has been both a civic leader and a business leader. Those of us who opposed NAFTA know him as a worthy adversary, a man who gets things done. More important, Bill Daley is a man who understands what a privilege and an honor it is to be a public servant. While it may be fashionable in some quarters to denigrate public servants, this nominee knows how effective government can change people's lives for the better. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm this excellent appointment. Mr. President, let me emphasize once again the point made by both our distinguished chairman and distinguished colleague, Senator Durbin. The Commerce Department has got to be in this front line now of rebuilding our economic strength--a very, very important division within the Department, foreign commercial services, the International Trade Administration. The consensus, I should emphasize to my friends, that while we are spending some $600 million, in a couple of years that budget that is getting ready for the next millennium that everyone is talking about, that budget will jump to $1.5 billion. I can see some saying, ``Heavens above, this is a runaway Department.'' But these endeavors cost, and we want to make sure that they do a credible job, as they have been doing, in my opinion. We have the very strong divisions in there with respect to the Economic Development Administration that has worked extremely well over the years now, and the Department has a group of the best professionals with respect to this global competition. When the special trade representative, when the State Department and others come and try to learn the facts, it is our Department of Commerce that furnishes the weaponry, so to speak, the statistics, the findings, and everything else as to exactly where we are and how well we are doing to give them credibility in their negotiations. So, to have the brilliance of Bill Daley of Chicago come to head up the Department, the conscientious nature that he has already displayed with respect to taking over these duties is heartening to this particular Senator, and I am delighted to be with our distinguished chairman in endorsing his nomination.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I am delighted to serve with my distinguished white- haired chairman. My wife says when I appear on TV I look like a Q-Tip. Mr. President, next week the President of the United States will be delivering his State of the Union Message. The Union is in somewhat disrepair, intense disrepair, I might say, because for 50 years after World War II, with the Marshall plan, we sacrificed our economy. And it has worked. Capitalism has overcome communism. They are going the way of freedom and individual rights the world around now. But it has been at quite a cost to our economic strength. We have lost over 2 million jobs just in the past 10 years. Our manufacturing sector has gone from 26 percent of our work force down to 13 percent. Now is the time to rebuild. In order to do that, we need a very strong Secretary. I am pleased that President Clinton has chosen an unusually strong Secretary in the person of Bill Daley of Chicago. The fact of the matter is, for many years now he has been a business leader, a business attorney, a banker, an outstanding civic leader, in many respects, and more particularly we know him here in Washington as a special counsel to President Clinton on extending the North American Free-Trade Agreement from Canada down to Mexico. Necessarily, there was quite a difference on this side of the aisle with respect to that agreement, but be that as it may, Bill Daley handled that with thoroughness and with tact and with persistence. And it passed with strong bipartisan support. He knows his subject of trade. He understands the business needs. He is a very strong individual. He came to the assignment immediately going over to brief himself on the Department and, as the distinguished chairman has already pointed out, has announced, in unique form for a nominee, that he was going to downsize some of the duplications there in the Department itself and make sure that the trips were made for industry and not for politics. More than anything else, he is really intent on reestablishing the morale of the Department with the loss of Ron Brown who did an outstanding job as the Secretary of Commerce. And I say that advisedly because I have been at least through a dozen or so in the last 30 years and worked with them in that 30-year period, not only with respect to the authorization of the Department, but the appropriations there. Ron Brown did an outstanding job. Yes, there were some solicitations. Thank heavens it was not solicitations by Ron Brown like most Secretaries of Commerce. We had one Republican Secretary of Commerce go to jail for his solicitations. If we have to get into solicitations, I am going to be glad to make the record. But the spirit here is one of bipartisanship in the support for Bill Daley. I was particularly impressed that not only the distinguished Democratic Senators, Senator Moseley-Braun of Illinois, and our distinguished colleague, Senator Durbin of Illinois, were there to present him in enthusiastic fashion, but he was presented to the committee by none other than the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the most respected Henry Hyde of Illinois, and the campaign manager for Robert Dole's Presidency, the former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. So we have the respect and confidence of the leadership in Chicago and Illinois that really knows him best. And it is with that record here that he comes. I am particularly enthusiastic that President Clinton has made this appointment. I want to yield now to our distinguished colleague from Illinois. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of extending the aviation ticket tax through the end of fiscal year 1997. This tax is very important to the day-to-day operation of our Nation's aviation system. Money to improve, maintain, and run our airports is 100 percent supported by fees paid by the users of the air transportation system. It is not paid for by the taxes we all pay on April 15. Every time they fly, people have been paying the user fees in the form of a ticket tax. That money has been going into the airport and airway trust fund, and the money is then disbursed through the appropriations process. We tell people to pay these fees, and we tell them we will then spend it on airports. However, there is one small problem. The ticket tax expired at the end of 1996. Due to budget games, the money that we thought would be in the trust fund is not there. Originally we were advised that the trust fund would be broke in July, but now it appears that it will be depleted as early as March. If this situation is not corrected, millions of dollars in airport modernization projects, aviation safety enhancements, and airport security efforts will have to be delayed or terminated. The obvious answer to this untenable situation is to reinstate the aviation ticket tax, and that is why I am cosponsoring Senator McCain's bill. I urge my fellow colleagues to quit playing budget games and start fulfilling Government's primary function-- preserving the safety of the American people.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of extending the aviation ticket tax through the end of fiscal year 1997. This tax is very important to the day-to-day operation of our Nation's aviation system. Money to improve, maintain, and run our airports is 100 percent supported by fees paid by the users of the air transportation system. It is not paid for by the taxes we all pay on April 15. Every time they fly, people have been paying the user fees in the form of a ticket tax. That money has been going into the airport and airway trust fund, and the money is then disbursed through the appropriations process. We tell people to pay these fees, and we tell them we will then spend it on airports. However, there is one small problem. The ticket tax expired at the end of 1996. Due to budget games, the money that we thought would be in the trust fund is not there. Originally we were advised that the trust fund would be broke in July, but now it appears that it will be depleted as early as March. If this situation is not corrected, millions of dollars in airport modernization projects, aviation safety enhancements, and airport security efforts will have to be delayed or terminated. The obvious answer to this untenable situation is to reinstate the aviation ticket tax, and that is why I am cosponsoring Senator McCain's bill. I urge my fellow colleagues to quit playing budget games and start fulfilling Government's primary function-- preserving the safety of the American people.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, he said: It is true that Social Security is currently running surpluses, and these surpluses offset deficit spending in the rest of the budget. Well, heavens above, that is what we are trying to stop. We are not trying to pass a constitutional amendment as a subterfuge to the American people. He comes now and says we, who want to protect Social Security--as he voted to do in the Budget Committee, and provided in his formal views in the Budget Committee report, and thereupon, as he did on the floor of the U.S. Senate--are using the surpluses to ``offset deficit spending in the rest of the budget.'' That is a gimmick. That is a subterfuge. He expresses concern because we might build up deficits for Social Security in the next century. How about our deficit to Social Security this minute? Spending $66 billion, this past year over $70-some billion, we owe Social Security this minute $570 billion and by the year 2002 we will owe it $1 trillion. Who is going to raise taxes $1 trillion to make Social Security solvent? I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, with this limited time, the Report of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will read just one paragraph from this report and then my statement will be complete. Unfortunately, the balanced budget amendment pushed by the leadership would undermine the approach to protect Social Security in promoting generational equity. Under this version of the balanced budget amendment, total Government expenditures in any year, including expenditures for Social Security benefits, could not exceed total revenues collected in the same year. The implications of this requirement for Social Security are profound. It would mean that Social Security surpluses could not be used to cover the benefit costs of the baby boom generation when it retires. The benefits for the baby boom generation would, instead, have to be financed in full by the taxes of those working in those years. The leadership version thus would eviscerate the central achievement of the Greenspan Commission. Mr. President, we have some 33 cosponsors to Senate Joint Resolution 1, who now want to eviscerate the Social Security protections they voted for earlier. I have counted them. The majority of these cosponsors were here in 1990 when we voted to take it off budget--the others were not here in 1990 when this vote was taken, but 33 of these cosponsors were here. We wrote a letter just a few years ago to Senator Dole, some five Members on this side. It was a letter dated March 1, 1995. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there are those in public service who feel that since posterity can do nothing for them, they see no reason to do anything for posterity. They look to the next election rather than the next generation, and this is the contrary for that. We are not vying for the AARP or really the senior citizens. You don't get any letters on what we are talking about this morning from the AARP or any of those other seniors because they got their money. They know that surpluses are there right now. They are worried about Medicare, but they are not worried about this one. The youngsters, the baby boomers that we are trying to look out for, the unborn that we are looking out for now have been told they are never going to get it, so they are all running around with IRAs and all these other kinds of things totally distorting a social insurance program. Right to the point, and then I will sit down. We are doing this for the trust of the baby boomers, for the yet unborn in the next generation, not for the senior citizens right now. This is not a political thing for senior citizens or gimmick or tactic, as they call it in this morning's Washington Post. This is truth in budgeting and maintaining the trust that we all voted for 98 to 2.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Let me thank my distinguished colleague from North Dakota. Senator Dorgan has been forthright and persistent on this particular score. He has given us the necessary leadership to bring truth in budgeting. I will never forget when we started out in this budget process back in 1973 and 1974--and I am the only remaining Member in either body, House and Senate, that still serves on that Budget Committee--the litany was all for a 10-year period and, particularly up through Gramm- Rudman-Hollings, about truth in budgeting. No more smoke and mirrors, no more rosy scenarios and those kinds of things--certainly no use of trust funds to obscure the actual size of the deficit. It is very easy to determine what a deficit is. All you need to do is find out what the debt is this year and then what the debt is the ensuing year, and a simple subtraction will determine for you, if you please, that the debt this past fiscal year, for 1996, was $261 billion--not $107 billion. Not $107 billion, $261 billion. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, if you please, a chart which shows that the U.S. budget ``busts'' the trust funds. It shows the trust fund surpluses, the real deficit, the gross Federal debt, and the gross interest costs.