Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me for a moment withdraw the unanimous consent request and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending bill, S. 1712, be placed back on the calendar in its present status, and that the bill become the pending business again at the discretion of the majority leader with the concurrence of the Democrat leader and the chairman of the Banking Committee.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me give a word of explanation. First of all, let me make it clear that it is my intention as a person who has concurrence in this decision not to bring the bill back up through this procedure, nor will I support it being done unless there is an agreement among the parties. Obviously, I would have a right to file cloture on the motion to proceed at some point. Let me explain what has happened. We have for the last 3 weeks been trying to work out concerns about a very tough, very important, and very complicated bill. America has two competing interests. On the one hand, we want to produce and export items that embody high technology because that is the fastest growing industry in the world. We are the world leader in the high-tech industry, and it creates the best paying jobs in America. We have that as one objective. On the other hand, we want to prevent technology that has defense and security implications from falling into the hands of those who might use that technology against the United States of America and our interests. Between these two interests, there is competition and friction. These are very complicated and very tough issues. In the last 3 weeks, roughly half a dozen Members of the Senate have been working to bring to the floor and pass a bill that passed the Banking Committee 20-0 and that would do something we have not done since 1990: to set in place a new permanent law to protect America's access to the high-tech world market and at the same time protect our national security. We thought yesterday that we had reached an agreement in principle that would allow us to bring the bill to the floor. The problem with reaching agreements in principle is that, as one of my famous constituents once said, the devil is in the details. We found ourselves today thinking we had such an agreement but having great difficulty getting the language to comport to what each individual felt the principle to be. Under those circumstances, I thought good faith required that the bill be pulled down. So we pulled the bill down, and it will not come up under this consent agreement unless an agreement is worked out among the parties that were engaged in this negotiation. I think we all agree that no one acted in bad faith, but what happened was, on a very complicated and very important matter, agreeing in principle is not agreeing to the details. We are hopeful that in the next few days we might still work out these details. If we do, then we will go to this unanimous consent agreement and bring the bill back up. If we don't work out those differences, we will not. Before I yield the floor, because I know the distinguished Senator of the Foreign Relations Committee wants to take the floor, I will make a general point. We started dealing in export control in 1917 with the Trading With the Enemy Act. We then had the Neutrality Act in 1935, and, with the beginning of the cold war, the Export Control Act became law in 1949. We were in a life and death struggle with the Soviet Union. There was an ``evil empire.'' There was a cold war. We won the cold war, and export control on a multilateral basis played a key role in that victory. In those days, two things existed which no longer exist. One was that the United States had a virtual monopoly in high technology. Indeed, we were the world's undisputed leader in technology. Virtually, every area in the world had been decimated by World War II, and we stood supreme. So technology was an American monopoly. Second, in 1949, most of the new technology was driven by defense research. Our legitimate concern, life and death struggle concern, was that this defense research embodied in American industry would end up leaking abroad where it could threaten American national security. By 1990, our consensus had started to fade on the Export Administration Act, and while for two brief periods--from March 1993 through June 1994, and from July 1994 to August 1994--we had temporary solutions, since 1990 we have had no permanent law to protect American national security. Today, the world is very different. We have won the cold war. Today, technology is driven by private industry. Today, it is not defense labs that are generating the new technology that drives American business, it is American industry. We had set out in our export law the number of MTOPS, millions of theoretical operations per second, that a restricted computer could employ, thinking we were protecting what we then called supercomputers. Now, any schoolchild with a computer has the technical capacity, or can get it, and exceed that limit. The number of MTOPS is doubling every 6 months. So we were faced with a decisive question: Can we pass a law and control this technology? We could pass a law and stop it in the United States, but it would occur elsewhere in the world. What we ultimately have to decide is: Is our security tied to our being the leader in technology, or is it tied to our ability to hold on to the technology we have and not share it with anybody? I believe in the end that American security is tied to our leadership in technology. I believe that we have put together a good bill. There is a debate about the details, and there are legitimate differences. As Thomas Jefferson once said: Good men with the same facts are prone to disagree. I have seen nothing in my political career or personal life to convince me that Jefferson was wrong about much of anything, but he was certainly not wrong about this. We have put together a bill that we believe meets national security concerns. But trying to deal with concerns about Presidential powers and waivers is extremely complicated. Yesterday we reached an agreement in principle. There was the nucleus of the agreement, but getting to the details this morning proved more difficult than we anticipated. To be absolutely certain that everyone's rights are preserved, and to be certain we are dealing in good faith, I concluded--and all of the members of the negotiation agreed--that the bill should be pulled down. As a result, I pulled it down. I am hopeful that perhaps as early as tomorrow these differences can be worked out. I don't know whether they can or they can't. I believe America would be richer, freer, happier, and more secure if they could. If they are not worked out, it won't be because I didn't make the effort. I want it to be worked out. I hope it can be. Whether it can be or it can't be, I want to be certain that we are dealing in good faith and that we are dealing with each other on that basis. I think we have preserved that here today. I appreciate my colleagues' help. Someone could have done mischief by objecting; my preference was to go back to the status quo, but we couldn't do that. We have achieved the same result with this agreement, and I thank my colleagues for agreeing to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I am proud to join in the introduction of legislation which will increase the number of H-1B temporary work visas used to recruit and hire workers with very specialized skills, particularly in high technology fields. This bill will ensure that the dramatic U.S. economic expansion will not be stalled by a lack of skilled workers in critical positions. It retains the language of current law which protects qualified U.S. workers from being displaced by H-1B visa holders. With record low unemployment, U.S. companies already have been forced to slow their expansion or even to cancel projects, and some may be forced to move their operations overseas because of an inability to find qualified individuals to fill job vacancies. We will achieve our full economic potential only if we ensure that high-technology companies can find and hire the people whose unique qualifications and skills are critical to America's future. Last year, the Congress temporarily increased the number of annual H- 1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, and to 107,500 in 2001. The number of H-1B visas is scheduled to drop back to 65,000 for Fiscal Year 2002 and subsequent years. Our legislation will increase the H-1B visa cap to 195,000 for Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and 2002. By the end of that period, we will have the data we need to make an informed decision on the number of such visas required beyond 2002. According to a recent study by the American Electronics Association (AEA), Texas has the fastest growing high technology industry in the country and is second only to California in the number of high technology workers. This legislation would ensure that these companies have access to highly educated workers, in order that America can continue to grow and prosper, and in doing so, create more jobs and opportunity for U.S. workers. I believe that this legislation represents a fair and effective way to address a critical need in our Nation's economy, and I hope my colleagues will quickly approve this important proposal.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today I am proud to join in the introduction of legislation which will increase the number of H-1B temporary work visas used to recruit and hire workers with very specialized skills, particularly in high technology fields. This bill will ensure that the dramatic U.S. economic expansion will not be stalled by a lack of skilled workers in critical positions. It retains the language of current law which protects qualified U.S. workers from being displaced by H-1B visa holders. With record low unemployment, U.S. companies already have been forced to slow their expansion or even to cancel projects, and some may be forced to move their operations overseas because of an inability to find qualified individuals to fill job vacancies. We will achieve our full economic potential only if we ensure that high-technology companies can find and hire the people whose unique qualifications and skills are critical to America's future. Last year, the Congress temporarily increased the number of annual H- 1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000, and to 107,500 in 2001. The number of H-1B visas is scheduled to drop back to 65,000 for Fiscal Year 2002 and subsequent years. Our legislation will increase the H-1B visa cap to 195,000 for Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and 2002. By the end of that period, we will have the data we need to make an informed decision on the number of such visas required beyond 2002. According to a recent study by the American Electronics Association (AEA), Texas has the fastest growing high technology industry in the country and is second only to California in the number of high technology workers. This legislation would ensure that these companies have access to highly educated workers, in order that America can continue to grow and prosper, and in doing so, create more jobs and opportunity for U.S. workers. I believe that this legislation represents a fair and effective way to address a critical need in our Nation's economy, and I hope my colleagues will quickly approve this important proposal.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin. It is my understanding that since the distinguished Senator from Missouri wanted to speak only 3 or so minutes, that he had agreed that after I speak-- and I should speak only 5 or 10 minutes--the Senator from Missouri could speak 3 or 4 minutes before Senator Harkin takes the floor. I think he has an hour. I thank him for that. I hope people are watching this debate. Our dear colleague from North Dakota does an excellent job of presenting his point of view. It is not a point of view I agree with, but it is a point of view that obviously he believes and he presents very effectively, as does Senator Harkin. For people who believe that there are no differences among Members, that parties don't make any difference, that Democrats and Republicans are identical, I hope they are listening to this debate because we are getting to the very heart of the fundamental differences that separate us and, in separating us, serve the country. In the process, we have an opportunity to present competing visions. Then every 2 years, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, people decide whose vision they want to follow. I think this debate is very informative and very important. I have asked for a fairly short amount of time. I think the minority side has 4 hours 5 minutes. I have asked that our side have 45 minutes because I think our case is a very strong one, and we don't think we have to be repetitive to make it. As I look down the list of Americans who have served as Chairmen of the Board of the Federal Reserve Board, it reads like a Who's Who in economics and banking: Paul Volcker, Arthur Burns, William McChesney Martin. These are Americans who have provided distinguished service to our country. But as I look at the record of Alan Greenspan, I can stand on the floor of the Senate and say, without any fear of contradiction, that Alan Greenspan's record is the finest record that has ever been established by a Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board since we created the Federal Reserve and it began operating in 1913. I go further in saying that whether we are talking about Nicholas Biddle at the Second Bank of the United States or about monetary policy conducted by the Treasury or about any central banker in any monetary center anywhere on the planet, I believe a strong case can be made that Alan Greenspan is the greatest central banker in the history of the world. Why do I say these things? Let the record speak for itself in terms of what has happened under Alan Greenspan's leadership. First, how many people have been appointed to the highest appointed position in the land by Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton? Is there any other person who has been appointed to a high position of public trust by those three men? The answer is no. And why have three successive Administrations appointed Alan Greenspan to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board? Because he is the best central banker we have ever had. As we all debate this issue and have our opportunity to second-guess Alan Greenspan, let me talk about the record. The day Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board in 1987, long-term interest rates were 8.98 percent. Today they are 6.42 percent. As a result, millions of Americans who did not have the opportunity to build and buy their own homes the day Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, now have that opportunity, and they are seizing it in record numbers. The day Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood at 1,938.83. Today the Dow stands at over 11,000. In other words, the equity value of the broad cross-section measure of the fundamental industry in America has risen during the period that Alan Greenspan has been Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board by nearly 500 percent. Today, schoolteachers, firemen, insurance salesmen, and coaches find that the value of their 401(k)s and their IRAs have skyrocketed, and as a result, their financial security has grown. They approach retirement in a better position than anyone could have ever expected. And that wealth is widely distributed. More Americans own part of the equity value of America than ever before in history. Indeed, we have come the closest of any society in history of fulfilling the Marxist dream of workers owning the means of production--only we have done it the real way, not with the government stealing it and claiming that workers own it; workers really do own it. The unemployment rate the day Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board stood at 5.7 percent. Today, it is 4.1 percent--the lowest level in 30 years. In fact, when you look at the array of social programs in the economy and their impact on the incentive of people to take jobs, when you look at the environment in which that 4.1 percent exists, I doubt if there has ever been a day in American history where the unemployment rate was effectively lower than it is today. The wonderful thing about this growth in employment is that it is not just the same people who are always getting jobs. A Congressman's daughter and the son of the bank president get jobs--good times and bad times. What is wonderful about the golden economic age in which we are living is that employment among minorities is growing faster than employment in the economy as a whole. We have had an explosion in the number of women who have gone into business and succeeded, and the benefits of this economic growth are being more widely shared today than any economic growth that we have ever achieved. The rate of inflation on the day Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board was 4.5 percent, and we were grateful. Today, the inflation rate is just 2.7 percent. As one of our colleagues already noted, if we could account for quality differences, if we could take into account the quality differences in a new Suburban versus a Suburban 10 years ago, or the quality difference in a Sony television as compared to 10 years ago, that inflation rate would be virtually zero. Just as Alan Greenspan was beginning his service as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1987, we had a stock market drop of 500 points. That was a time when 500 points were real and represented a dramatic drop in equity values. Some argued that the Government had to intervene; too many people are investing in the equity market; we have to have dramatic reforms. But under the stable leadership of Alan Greenspan, and several other members of the Working Group that was put together at that time, we basically set about to strengthen the system in terms of liquidity and transparency, and Government kept its cold, dead hand off the equity market, and we have seen in the 1990s what the result has been. At the end of the 1980s, we experienced the S&L collapse, the greatest financial crisis during my period of service in Congress. It cost $100 billion to fix. It could have been avoided had we put up money earlier and acted earlier, as President Reagan urged. But under the leadership of Alan Greenspan, while nobody knew it at the time, we instituted a procedure of closing troubled thrifts and selling off assets, which the whole world looks at as the standard of how you deal with a financial crisis. Have we forgotten the Mexican peso crisis? Have we forgotten the Asian economic crisis? Can you remember when it was conventional wisdom that the collapse in Asia was going to mean an economic downturn in America? I missed that downturn, and so did America. Under Alan Greenspan's leadership, we have set a course that helped Asia regain its footing. Korea, through reforms, has done it. Other countries will achieve greater stability when they reform. Have we forgotten the Russian economic collapse? Have we forgotten the Brazilian currency collapse? In other words, Alan Greenspan's stewardship as chairman has not been uneventful. But the net result is that the American economy has stayed on track. It is easy for us to second-guess the policies of the Federal Reserve Board, but who thought Alan Greenspan would raise interest rates on the very day that we are considering his confirmation? If that is not a statement of confidence in him, I don't know what is, and I don't see any reason to be second-guessing Alan Greenspan's record. If I have a concern today as we move toward this vote, it is what are we going to do when Alan Greenspan is gone. I hope there is someone out there who will be capable of matching this record. But I am not sure there is such a person, and it worries me. My grandmother used to say, ``The graveyard is full of indispensable men.'' Alan Greenspan is not going to have this job forever. But as long as he wants it, and I have a vote about whether he is going to get it, based on this record, I am going to vote to give him the opportunity to continue to serve. Let me conclude with a final remark, and then I will turn it over to my colleague. Our founders were afraid of men on white horses. They tried to write a system so that it didn't make any difference how elections turned out. They tried to make it so that it didn't matter who was appointed to various positions because they knew that people were fallible. They tried to write a system that was relatively infallible. And so when someone achieves a record like this, while you can't give Alan Greenspan all the credit--I think a lot of the credit goes back to Ronald Reagan and the reforms that we undertook then, and I am willing to give some credit to Bill Clinton and some to Congress. But if you were going to pick anybody who is currently holding a position of public trust and ask who has had more to do with the success we have had in this last decade--the last 12 years, really--of unparalleled economic achievement, I think you would have to give the prize to Alan Greenspan. So there are two sides to the story. I hope people will listen to these arguments. This is serious business when you are talking about the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board. I hope they will listen to these arguments and that they will see that there are differences among Members, differences between the two parties. As long as there are people like Alan Greenspan who are willing to serve, I think America is in good shape. I am eager to see him have the opportunity to serve for another 4 years. I hope he is blessed with health that will allow him to continue in this job for a very long period of time. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM. Secondly, let me say that when we do have the minority side represented on the floor, I am going to seek to amend that to protect the time of the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Senator Sarbanes, and to protect my time. I urge those who have reserved up to an hour each in some cases to come to the floor and speak. With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have an unusual time agreement where we have 4 hours 50 minutes. I have asked, as chairman of the committee, to have 45 minutes under my control to make the case for Chairman Greenspan, the President's nominee. I have a very small number of people who wish to speak. Senator Sarbanes, as ranking member, has made a similar request for 45 minutes. I think the normal procedure would be to run off time proportionately among those who have asked for time. But since Senator Sarbanes and I have such a small amount of time, and many other Members who aren't members of the committee have more time reserved than we do, I would like to begin, so that there will be no dispute, no misunderstanding, by asking unanimous consent that the time be charged proportionately to the two sides. The minority side has 4 hours 5 minutes. The majority side has 45 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged proportionately.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, what we have before us is not the answer to our prayers, but it is what we call in politics ``consensus.'' Margaret Thatcher said of consensus: To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes. Well, I would like to say to our dear colleagues, Senator Kohl and Senator Grams, that I do not support dairy compacts. There are two sides to every issue, and I know we have people on both sides. In this case, however, at least in my mind, there is a right side and a wrong side. Dairy compacts would make a Soviet commissar blush. The idea of allowing a regional group of producers to conspire, with Government support, and set prices is an absolute outrage. We ought to be ashamed of it, especially having passed Freedom to Farm. I share the outrage of my two colleagues. I just want to say to Rod Grams and Herb Kohl, on this issue, not only did they fight for their States but for every consumer across this country. Senator Byrd, if the great general had been from Wisconsin it would have been a much shorter war, from a historians point of view, and that would have meant a much better outcome from a humanitarian's point of view. In any case, we have had people here who stood up and fought for what they believed in, what was right for their States. In this body we still honor those people. I commend both Senator Kohl and Senator Grams.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator. As you know, we agreed on language that would permit the U.S. to support mobilization of the amount of IMF gold necessary to provide a stream of interest earnings sufficient for IMF participation in the HIPC initiative. However, we agreed that only \9/14\ of the interest earnings could be used for HIPC debt relief, until such time as Congress authorized the U.S. to vote in favor of using the remaining \5/14\ of the earnings as well. I committed to the Administration that the Banking Committee would act on this remaining IMF authorization no later than May 1, 2000. It is my hope, of course, that the Foreign Relations Committee could act with similar dispatch.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, today the Senate is taking up for its consideration H.R. 1094, a bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to broaden the range of discount window loans which may be used as collateral for Federal Reserve notes. This legislation will expand the field of assets that the Federal Reserve may use to collateralize Federal Reserve notes. All currency in circulation must be backed by specific assets, but much of the collateral that the Federal Reserve accepts for discount window loans is ineligible under current law for use to back the currency. The changes put in place by this legislation will allow the Federal Reserve to apply all eligible discount loan assets to collateralize the currency. This legislation poses some risks unless adequate safeguards are in place. The Federal Reserve applies a discount to each type of asset used as collateral. Broadening the scope of eligible assets makes it even more imperative that strict and aggressive discounting be applied to any assets used to back U.S. currency. The Federal Reserve should discount aggressively these assets through an objective and clearly defined process that leaves no room for doubt that our currency is fully backed by reliable assets. At the most basic level, when valuing these assets this should be our general rule: when in doubt, discount. Failure to discount collateral assets aggressively would do more than threaten the safety and soundness of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet; it would threaten the U.S. economy and all economies that rely on a stable dollar. Many countries around the world recently have learned a painful lesson on the value of a sound currency. We must remember that any country can engage in monetary mismanagement, and most have at some point in time. The United States must avoid that path. With a currency that is considered a stable medium by U.S. citizens and a store of value by both domestic and foreign investors, the Federal Reserve must hold sound money paramount as it implements this important change in currency collateral requirements. It has taken nearly two decades to rebuild the reputation of the dollar after the inflation of the Carter years. Today, ``sound as a dollar'' has meaning here and all over the world. We must do nothing to undermine it.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 3373, the Leif Ericson Millennium Commemorative Coin Act. This bill authorizes three separate commemorative coin programs which will commemorate the following historic events: the millennial anniversary of Leif Ericson's discovery of the New World, the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition, and the bicentennial of the first meeting of the United States Congress in the Capitol building after moving to Washington, D.C. Companion bills for each of the three coin programs included in H.R. 3373 have also been introduced separately in the Senate. All three of the free-standing bills, S.1710, S. 1187, and S. 1468, have satisfied the rules of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on commemorative coin legislation, including having obtained a minimum of sixty-seven Senate cosponsors. The effort to combine the three bills and pass them as one coin package has been worked out by the House and Senate Banking Committees, and this bill was subsequently introduced and passed by the House of Representatives. Mr. President, this legislation has the support of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs as it fully meets the standards set forth by the committee and furthermore, each bill adheres to the commemorative coin reforms enacted in the 104th Congress. Those reforms were necessary to keeping the time-honored pasttime of coin collecting from becoming overrun with far too many coin programs commemorating events or figures of lesser national recognition. I look forward to swift enactment of this legislation.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. This has obviously been a very difficult issue. We passed the satellite bill in the Senate unanimously. I think every Member of the Senate realizes the ability to receive television signals in America is critically important. On Saturday, you want to watch Texas A&M. On Sunday, you want to watch the Dallas Cowboys. And one's life is diminished if you cannot do either one of those things. The problem we had was we passed a bill in the Senate to set up the legal structure to get that job done. They passed a bill in the House to do the same. Neither bill had any loan guarantee language in it. The conferees realized there was a problem, but in their haste to get it done, it is my opinion that we ended up with language that was as good as anybody could have written during that short period of time. Under the agreement we have reached, we have an opportunity to have representatives of the television stations, the satellite companies, and potential Internet suppliers come in. We have the ability to look at the technology. We have the ability to look at loan guarantees we have given in the past. We have the ability to get the input of the Treasury. Hopefully, we will have the ability to put together a bill that will maximize the chances that every American will have access to their local television station. I want my colleagues to know, as I have said many times as this debate has evolved, I intend, by the 30th of March, to report a bill from the Banking Committee. It is my goal not only to write a bill that will deal with this problem, but I hope we can develop a prototype for the future, where we recognize that there are some social goals that are not necessarily met by market forces, and that the market by itself might not provide this service which we have deemed to be important. The question then is: What can you do to provide this service at the lowest possible cost and in the most efficient manner? It is my goal to put together a bill that will achieve that goal and perhaps be a prototype for similar problems in the future. So I thank my colleagues. Probably as much effort has gone into this one little issue as anything throughout this whole process. It is an important issue. It involved an important principle. I think we have reached a good conclusion. I am happy about it. I believe, when we complete it, that every Member of the Senate and every Member of Congress and, hopefully, everybody who has a satellite dish or wants one will be happy about it as well. I thank my colleagues. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I was going to speak on this subject of the satellite bill, but I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if we could simply accommodate every speaker, while realizing that we are waiting for the omnibus bill to come over from the House, may I suggest we amend that unanimous consent request so that the Senator be recognized in the order of the sequence we have, but that when the omnibus bill comes over from the House, it continue to take precedence?

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business extend until 6 p.m.

Mr. GRAMM. As far as I am aware, we have gone back and forth from the Democrat side to the Republican side. I have listened to five other people speak. I have been well served by hearing their speeches. I will be as brief as I can.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is obvious that there are a lot of people who want to speak. Let me sum up by saying that in an era where I think we have gotten Government out of balance, where extremist elements are determined to impose their will and their values--often at the expense of the jobs of people who work with their hands and who, in the process, contribute to America--when we become callous to the needs of working people by catering to people who are often quite well off and quite successful and quite comfortable, who, in some cases, would put their interests and their hobbies ahead of working people, it is very important that we have someone such as Senator Byrd who pulls us back to reality. I think Senator Byrd mentioned my name as a cosponsor. But just in case he did not, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added.

Mr. GRAMM. I am proud to support this amendment. I think the administration has become dominated by people who are more concerned about specific elements of the environment, as they define it, than they are concerned about the environment based on good science. I think they are more concerned about their values than the well-being of the people who do the work and pay the taxes and pull the wagon in America. It is easy for a planner or an idealist to set out a policy and act as if destroying the livelihood of a coal miner is as irrelevant as simply overturning a regulation. But we know the difference between a regulation and the livelihood of a coal miner. It is because we know the difference that we are here. I hope this amendment passes. I hope it sends a clear signal that the Clinton administration has become an extremist administration in terms of the environment. This is a bipartisan effort. I think it is important. I think it pulls us back to the center in recognizing we want a better environment. But we want to look at costs and benefits. We want to look at science. When we are putting thousands of people out of work, we ought to stop and reflect on what we are doing. Senator Byrd is asking us to do that today. I am proud to join him in this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is easy when you come to work every day in the most historic and important building in the world to forget you are part of history--to forget you are in a sacred place where history has been made in the past. But it is even easier to forget you are making history now. But I am reminded that we are making history now when I listen to Senator Byrd speak with righteousness on behalf of the working people of West Virginia. And might I also say, I have never heard a more eloquent speech in the Senate than Senator Craig's speech that he gave earlier. Having heard those speeches--including Senator McConnell's and Senator Rockefeller's--I do not want to rise to talk about the substance. I do not think you can improve on what they had to say. But there is an important point, at least in my mind, that I want to make; and that is, something is wrong in America. Something is out of balance in America. If tomorrow in West Virginia a sub-species of crickets develop that have legs 6 millimeters longer than crickets as we know them, or that have brown or white specks on them, they would be protected before the law. They would be protected by the Endangered Species Act. There would literally be thousands of people who would be willing to troop to West Virginia and hold signs and demand that this new sub-species of crickets be protected. But yet when the livelihood of people who hear that alarm ring at 4:30 a.m. in the morning--and if you grew up in one of those houses--I know Senator Byrd did--the next sound you would hear is those two feet hitting the floor. It is predictable. You know what is going to happen, whether it is raining or whether it is not raining. These are people who get up every day, who work hard, who struggle to make ends meet, who sit down around the kitchen table on the first day of the month and get out that stub they got with their paycheck. Then they take the back of an envelope, or a piece of paper, and they try to figure out how they are going to be able to pay their bills, and who they can get by without paying this month. They contribute to America by producing things America needs. I think something is out of kilter in America when our laws are more focused on protecting sub-species of crickets than they are focused on protecting people who earn a living with the sweat of their brow and with their hands. I think something is very wrong in America when there does not seem to be much focus on working men and women. And what was moving to me about Senator Byrd's speech is he was speaking on behalf of the people who work with their hands, and who work for a living, and who often do not have much of a voice in American Government. I am not here to criticize people who have focused, in some cases, their lives, their civic activity, and their leisure time activity on the environment. But I think something is wrong when, in focusing on the environment, we forget about people who work for a living and are affected. I think, in some cases, environmentalism has gone too far. I think, in some cases, that it has become anti-growth. Maybe that makes sense if you live in a fancy air-conditioned house and if your children have gone to college. If you have boundless opportunities, it makes sense to say we need to protect the environment at all costs and that there is no burden that is too great to bear. After all, the person saying that already has a piece of the American pie and has already generally lived the American dream. But I think what Senator Byrd has reminded us of is that not every American has lived the American dream. Not every American has gotten a piece of the pie. I think when we have focused so much on a sub-species of crickets, it is about time that people in the Senate stand up and say: What about people who make a living in the mining industries of this country-- people who have had placed on their livelihood less weight by American law than we place on the assumed well-being of subspecies of crickets? I think something is out of balance in America. I think we need to bring it back into balance. I think we need to remind people who are so concerned about one particular element of the environment that there is no more basic part of the environment than the ability of the people in West Virginia, or Kentucky, or Texas, or any other State in the Union to make their house payment, or their ability to earn a livelihood, or their ability to have self-respect in their own worth of what they do. We are not talking about tearing down America's environmental laws. No country in history has a better environment than we have. No country has spent more resources and legitimate effort on their environment than we have.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, one of the provisions of the bill before the Senate today would ``amend the Federal Reserve Act to broaden the range of discount window loans which may be used as collateral for Federal Reserve notes.'' This legislation was considered by the House Banking Committee and has been referred to the Senate Banking Committee. It is now being offered as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill to expedite its enactment prior to the adjournment of the Congress. The currency collateral legislation would expand the field of assets that the Federal Reserve may use to collateralize Federal Reserve notes. All currency in circulation must be backed by specific assets, but much of the collateral that the Federal Reserve accepts for discount window loans is ineligible under current law for use to back the currency. The changes put in place by this legislation will allow the Federal Reserve to apply all eligible discount loan assets to collateralize the currency. This legislation poses some risks unless adequate safeguards are in place. The Federal Reserve applies a discount to each type of asset used as collateral. Broadening the scope of eligible assets makes it even more imperative that strict and aggressive discounting be applied to any assets used to back U.S. currency. The Federal Reserve should discount aggressively these assets through an objective and clearly defined process that leaves no room for doubt that our currency is fully backed by reliable assets. At the most basic level, when valuing these assets this should be our general rule: when in doubt, discount. Failure to discount collateral assets aggressively would do more than threaten the safety and soundness of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet; it would threaten the U.S. economy and all economies that rely on a stable dollar. Many countries around the world recently have learned a painful lesson on the value of a sound currency. We must remember that any country can engage in monetary mismanagement, and most have at some point in time. The United States must avoid that path. With a currency that is considered a stable medium by U.S. citizens and a store of value by both domestic and foreign investors, the Federal Reserve must hold sound money paramount as it implements this important change in currency collateral requirements. It has taken nearly two decades to rebuild the reputation of the dollar after the inflation of the Carter years. Today, ``sound as a dollar'' has meaning here and all over the world. We must do nothing to undermine it.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a moment about another subject. I do not want to interfere with this important debate, but I think the subject I want to speak about is important in its own right. I want to put my colleagues and the public on notice about what is happening. Probably we have all received more telephone calls and more letters on the so-called Satellite Home Viewer Act than any issue we have dealt with in this Congress. This is an issue that flows from the fact that people who have satellite dishes, especially people who live in the country, want to have access to their nearest television station. It is something we all understand. For those of us who live in the country, it is something we want. The House of Representatives adopted a very good bill that would allow negotiations between satellites and local television stations with a goal of bringing the local television station into every living room and den in America. This would be a great boon to people who have satellite dishes in rural areas. That bill was adopted in the House 422 to 1 on April 27. On May 20, the Senate unanimously adopted a similar bill. These bills are very strongly supported. We are all getting hundreds of telephone calls in support of them. They do what each caller wants, and that is make it possible for people, especially in rural areas, who have satellite dishes to get the news and the weather from the local station, however far away that may be. The problem is, for some unexplainable reason--at least unexplainable to logic--in the conference, rather than adopting the House bill or the Senate bill or something in between, the conferees apparently decided that not every problem in the world was solved, and therefore in an effort to try to solve problems which were not part of either bill, they decided to put the American taxpayer on the hook for a $1.25 billion loan guarantee. I want to make it clear. This loan guarantee was not part of the Senate bill for which we voted unanimously. It was not part of the House bill that passed 422 to 1. It was produced out of whole cloth in conference when the basic idea was there are additional problems that might be dealt with, so as a result, we want to simply add $1.25 billion. When you approach the people who added it, you get the idea this is somehow for small business. But when you read their bill, one of the loans can be as large as $625 million. The two obvious beneficiaries are two companies, one of which saw its equity value go up 4\1/2\ times the rate of the growth of the Dow Industrial Index over the last 12 months; the other one saw its equity value go up 49 times as fast as Dow did in the last 12 months. You might wonder why these two extraordinarily successful businesses with an explosion in their equity value, as measured by the value of common stock, suddenly need the taxpayer to come forth and sign a loan guarantee of $1.25 billion to get to the bottom line. I am for the satellite bill. I voted for it in the Senate. I would like to see it passed. I think it is an important piece of legislation. But I am adamantly opposed to Members of the House and the Senate simply deciding to put the taxpayer on the hook for $1.25 billion, with a provision that was in neither the House bill or Senate bill, a provision that cannot be justified by any logic whatsoever. I want to make it clear if that bill comes to the floor of the Senate and it has that loan guarantee in there obligating the American taxpayer for $1.25 billion, money that was not in the House bill, was not in the Senate bill, I intend to object to its consideration, and it will not become law in this millennium. I cannot speak beyond this thousand years. But I can assure you that under the rules of the Senate, it will not become law before the turn of the new millennium, if then. One of the authors of this provision, referring to me, said: I don't think anybody would want to have the reputation of having cost millions of Americans the loss of their network signal, so I don't anticipate problems on either floor. My response to our colleague in the House is: Anticipate problems on the floor of the Senate. And if anyone is endangering the ability of Americans to get the local television signal, it is not me; it is those who have added a $1.25 billion loan guarantee in this bill. I know there are going to be a lot of people calling my office and others. Here is my message: If you are for the satellite bill, if you want to be able to get your local television station, don't bother calling me. Call the people who want to add to a conference report this $1.25 billion giveaway which was not voted on in either House of Congress, and say to them: Quit trying to give my money away and give me my local television signal. I am not going to let this bill be adopted this year with that $1.25 billion giveaway in it. It is not too late. The conferees can come to their senses and take this provision out. It was not in either bill. It should not have been there to begin with. We can have the satellite bill passed by the end of tomorrow's business. But if it is not taken out, it is not going to be adopted. I wanted to come over and make that clear so everybody would know exactly where we are. If you want this bill, insist the $1.25 billion giveaway be taken out of it. We have the ability and we should make it possible for people in the country to get the adjacent cities' TV stations. I am for that. I am a direct beneficiary of it. Many of the people I care about are. But the idea we are talking about giving away $1.25 billion in loan guarantees to some of the most well-off companies in America as a rider on this bill is the kind of outrageous legislative action that has to be stopped. If they think because the underlying bill is so popular that everybody is just going to turn the other way and let this $1.25 billion giveaway occur, they are wrong. I do not intend to do that. It is not going to pass the Senate unless they take it out. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have a truth-in-lending law. It is vigorously enforced with many remedies, including damages in class action lawsuits. Senator Durbin's amendment would make bankruptcy courts, which have no jurisdiction over truth in lending whatsoever, an enforcement mechanism of the truth-in-lending law. This produces an absurd situation. Under truth in lending, the lender has an obligation to make some assessment about the borrower's ability to pay. Under this amendment, everyone who is in default or in bankruptcy will be able to argue that the bank should have known that the lender could not pay the loan back and therefore the mortgage should be forgiven. The net result is that hard-working, frugal people who save money and pay their debts would end up paying hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, in additional interest costs to cover people who would file lawsuits claiming, ``Well, I went broke and it's the bank's fault, and therefore I shouldn't have to pay my mortgage.'' This amendment should be defeated. Giving one court, which has no jurisdiction over the pertinent law, the ability to enforce that law, which rightly belongs in another court, is, I think, a gross violation of logic and the basic structure of the legal system. This is a bad amendment that will produce an even worse situation where honest people who pay their debts will end up paying higher interest rates for people who don't pay their debts. I move to table the Durbin amendment.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the idea that we in the U.S. Congress are going to pass a law that takes adults, under our Federal credit statutes, and force them to go back to their parents in order to get a credit card, when the credit behavior of students is superior to the general population, is simply an outrage. Our Democrat colleagues cannot get it right. When we debated the banking bill, they were concerned that banks wouldn't lend money to people who are needy. But when we are debating the bankruptcy bill, it is the bank's fault for lending too much money to people who are needy. They can't quite get it straight. I guess it varies depending on which bill are considering. Both of these amendments should be roundly defeated.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a cost estimate on the Export Administration Act of 1999, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be printed in the Congressional Record.