Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Senators Leahy and Hatch have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 344, S. 1754.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. GRASSLEY. There is a joint resolution at the desk which was introduced earlier by Senator Smith of New Hampshire, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1866, introduced earlier today by Senator Smith of New Hampshire and others.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before we start this very important bankruptcy reform legislation, first, thanks for working out the necessary parliamentary arrangements for bringing this bill up are owed to our majority leader, the Senator from Mississippi, and our minority leader, the Democratic leader, the Senator from South Dakota. So I thank them very much. Then secondly, not only because this bill is up now on the floor of the Senate but also for the process of getting it through the Judiciary Committee, we, obviously, thank the Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, for his leadership at the level of the committee and for a lot of things that had to be worked out to get us to the floor. And also thanks to the Senator from Vermont, the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, for his cooperation. Since the beginning of the year, I have had the opportunity to work with the ranking minority member of our subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli. Working with him has been a real treat, always with efforts to reach agreement. And for people throughout this country who have a tendency to be cynical about Washington, because of the lack of cooperation between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, I wish they could feel the working relationship Senator Torricelli, a Democrat, and I have had working on this legislation from its original introduction, with his not agreeing to everything I introduced--he was a cosponsor--but with a spirit that throughout this process, which has gone on since January to this point of bringing the bill up on the floor of the Senate, that we would work cooperatively and in a spirit of cooperation to reach further compromises. I hope that brings us to a point where we do not have a lot of controversial amendments on the floor of the Senate, at least as they relate to the bankruptcy subject, the relevant amendments. There will be a lot of amendments that have been in this bipartisan unanimous-consent agreement that are considered nongermane amendments, which will be brought up, that are controversial. We expected that to be part of the process. But for the amendments we have that relate to bankruptcy, I think there will be a lot fewer amendments because of the cooperation Senator Torricelli has shown in this compromise. For the second time in 2 years, the Senate is considering fundamental bankruptcy reform. Last year, we passed a bankruptcy reform bill but the Senate was prevented from considering the final conference report at the very end of the 105th Congress. This year, we have the chance to finish this important work. We've been waiting for some time to get this bill up on the floor, and now that we're here, I'm anxious to begin the debate. Bankruptcy is one of the most complicated subjects we will consider this year. So, at the outset, Mr. President, I think it's important for me as the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over bankruptcy to take a few minutes to describe what bankruptcy reform is really all about in commonsense terms that we can all understand. Simply put, bankruptcy is a court proceeding where people get their debts wiped away. Every time a debt is wiped away through bankruptcy somebody loses money. That's plain and simple common sense. Of course, when somebody who extends credit has their obligation wiped away in bankruptcy, they are forced to make a decision. Should this loss simply be swallowed as a cost of business? Or do you raise prices for other customers to make up for your losses? When bankruptcy losses are rare or infrequent, lenders can just swallow the loss. But when bankruptcies are frequent and common, lenders have to raise their prices to offset losses. For this reason, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers testified at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee that bankruptcies tend to drive up interest rates. Mr. President, if you believe Secretary Summers, bankruptcies are everyone's problem. Regular hardworking Americans have to pay higher prices for goods and services as a result of bankruptcies. The bankruptcy bill we're considering will discourage bankruptcies, and therefore lessen upward pressure on interest rates and higher prices by making it harder for people who can repay their debts to wipe them away. It seems like common sense to require people who can repay their debts to pull their own weight. But under our current bankruptcy laws, someone can get full debt cancellation in chapter 7 with no questions asked. If we pass S. 625, bankruptcy judges and trustees will start asking questions about ability to repay. And, if someone seeking bankruptcy can repay, they will be channeled into Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires people to repay some portion of their debts as a pre-condition for limited debt cancellation. Of course, people who can't repay can still use the bankruptcy system as they would have before. But, for people with higher incomes who can repay their debts, the free ride will be over. The basic bankruptcy policy question the Senate has to answer is this: Should people with means be required to pay at least some of their debts under Chapter 13 or not? Right now, the current bankruptcy system is oblivious to the financial condition of someone asking to be excused from paying his debts. The richest captain of industry could walk into a Bankruptcy Court tomorrow and walk out with his debts erased. And, as I described earlier, the rest of America will pay higher prices for goods and services as a result. I would ask my colleagues to think about that for a second. If we had no bankruptcy system at all, and we were starting from scratch, would we design a system that lets the rich walk away from their debts and shift the costs to society at large, including the poor and the middle class? I don't think that any of us here would design such a system. But somehow, that's exactly the system we have now. I could easily imagine the fiery rhetoric from our more liberal friends if we on the Republican side were to even suggest that the Senate create a bankruptcy system that lets the wealthy and the well-to-do walk away from their debts and stick working Americans with the tab. But we have just such a system in place today. Mr. President, if Senators ask themselves the question ``Who wins and who loses under current law, and who will win and who will lose if we pass S. 625,'' then I think that the importance of bankruptcy reform becomes pretty obvious. If you believe President Clinton's own Treasury Secretary, society at large loses under the current system when bankruptcies drive up interest rates. Of course, it's the deadbeats who walk away from their debts who win under the current system. If we pass this bill, then the American people will win as upward pressure on interest rates and prices is removed. And people who look at bankruptcy as a convenient financial planning tool will lose. Mr. President, I think our situation is urgent. Our bankruptcy system is spiraling out of control. These are good times in our Nation. Thanks to the fiscal discipline initiated by Congress, and the hard work of the American people, we have the first balanced budget in a generation. Unemployment is low, we have a burgeoning stock market and most Americans are optimistic about the future. But in the midst of such prosperity, about one and a half million Americans declared bankruptcy just in 1998. Based on filings for the first two quarters of 1999, it looks like there will be just under 1.4 million bankruptcy filings for this year. To put this in some historical context, since 1990 the rate of personal bankruptcy filings has increased almost 100 percent. Now, I don't think that anyone knows all the reasons underlying the bankruptcy crisis. But I think I can talk about what's not at the root of the bankruptcy crisis. I have a chart here that shows the dramatic increase in bankruptcies since 1993. During the same timeframe, as the chart shows, unemployment has declined just as dramatically and real wages have risen to an all-time high. The economic numbers tell us that the bankruptcy crisis isn't the result of people who can't get jobs. And the jobs that people do have are paying more than ever. So, the bankruptcy crisis isn't about desperate people confronting layoffs and underemployment. With the economy doing so well, and with so many Americans with high-quality, good-paying jobs, we have to look deep into the eroding moral values of some to find out what's driving the bankruptcy crisis. Some people flat out don't want to honor their obligations and are looking for an easy way out. In the opinion of this Senator, a significant part of the bankruptcy crisis is basically a moral crisis. Some people just don't have a sense of personal responsibility. It seems clear to me that our lax bankruptcy system must bear some of the blame for the bankruptcy crisis. Just as the welfare system we used to have encouraged people not to get jobs and encouraged people not to even think about pulling their own weight, our lax bankruptcy system doesn't even ask people to consider paying what they owe. Such a system obviously contributes to the fraying of the moral fiber of our Nation. Why pay your bills when you can walk away with no questions asked? Why honor your obligations when you can take the easy way out through bankruptcy? If we don't tighten the bankruptcy system, this moral erosion will certainly continue. Mr. President, the polls are very clear that the American people want the bankruptcy system tightened up. In my home State of Iowa, 78 percent of Iowans surveyed favor bankruptcy reform. And the picture is the same nationally. According to the PBS program ``Techno-Politics,'' almost 70 percent of Americans support bankruptcy reform. The American people seem to sense that the bankruptcy crisis is fundamentally a moral crisis. According to a poll conducted by the Democratic polling firm of Penn & Schoen on perceptions of bankruptcy, 84 percent of Americans think that bankruptcy is more socially acceptable today than a few years ago. Of course, Penn & Schoen is a Democratic polling firm used by President Clinton. So, I think that this number is very telling given that it was produced by a liberal polling firm. In my State of Iowa, the editorial page of the Des Moines Register has summed up the problem we have with the bankruptcy system by stating that bankruptcy ``was never intended as the one-stop, no-questions- asked solution to irresponsibility.'' I totally agree. So, let's look at the situation we face today. We have a bankruptcy system which fosters irresponsibility and which operates as a regressive system for redistributing economic resources from America's working families to the wealthy. In effect, blue collar factory workers are paying the tab for well-compensated professionals to live high on the hog. Mr. President, as we move forward to debate bankruptcy reform, I believe that we must keep in mind the fact that the bankruptcy crisis is both an economic problem and moral problem. If we pass meaningful bankruptcy reform this year, as I hope and expect that we will, the Senate can remove a drag on the economy and at the same time contribute the rebuilding of our Nation's moral foundations. Mr. President, over 30 years ago, Senator Albert Gore, Sr.--the father of the Vice-President--introduced a bill to means-test Chapter 7 debtors. In his introductory statement, in words that still ring true today, he described the similarities between special tax loopholes and lax bankruptcy laws. Senator Gore said that bankruptcy is like a special interest tax loophole in that someone gets out of paying his fair share at the expense of hardworking Americans who play by the rules. I think that Senator Gore had it exactly right all the way back then. In the last Congress we almost closed the Chapter 7 loophole. The Senate and House both passed good bills, and we made them both better in a conference report that received overwhelming bipartisan support in the other body. But we ran out of time in the Senate. I've made every effort to be fair and bipartisan throughout this process. When Senator Torricelli became my ranking member at the beginning of this year, I went to him and asked him to work with me on a new bankruptcy bill. Senator Torricelli asked for several modifications to last year's bankruptcy bill to respond to concerns raised by Members on his side of the aisle. I agree to make many of these changes. The means-test is much more flexible in this year's bill, giving judges greater discretion to consider the individual circumstances of each debtor. The bill contains much tougher penalties for using threats to coerce debtors into paying debts which could be wiped away once they are in bankruptcy. The bill also requires the Justice Department to concentrate law enforcement resources on enforcing consumer protection laws against abusive debt collection practices, and allows State law enforcement to enforce State consumer protections in bankruptcy court. The committee report lists these modifications in greater detail and summarizes the major changes from last year's conference report. Mr. President, when all of these many changes are considered in a fair and reasonable way, I believe that it will be clear that a great majority of Senators can support S. 625 as it is right now. But there's more. The Grassley-Torricelli amendment contains even more changes to ensure that lower income Americans are not disadvantaged by this reform. A provision to impose personal liability on debtor attorneys--which I strongly suppport--has been removed. And the Grassley-Torricelli amendment contains numerous changes to the small business title of the bankruptcy bill to add new flexibility. Shortly, I will cosponsor an amendment with Senator Torricelli to require credit card companies to give consumers meaningful information about minimum payments on credit cards. Consumers will be warned against making only minimum payments, and there will be an example to drive this point home. Finally, consumers will be given a toll-free phone number to call where they can get information about how long it will take to pay off their own credit card balances if they make only the minimum payments. This new information will truly educate consumers. This new information will improve the financial literacy of American consumers. In the Judiciary Committee, S. 625 was passed on a strong, bipartisan vote of 14-4. All Republicans and half of the Democrats voted for the bill. So, we have a good bill and one that most Members of the Senate should be able to support at the end of the day. With so many consumer protections and disclosures, I'm confident that the Senate will pass S. 625 with strong support. In addition to benefitting society at large, lessening upward pressures on interest rates, S. 625 makes a number of changes which I believe will be very beneficial to especially vulnerable segments of our society. Child support claimants have been given the highest priority when the assets of a bankruptcy estate are distributed to creditors. Bankruptcy trustees and creditors of bankrupts are required to give information about the location of deadbeat parents who owe child support, turning our bankruptcy courts into a low cost locator service for custodial parents. And finally, under S. 625 parents owning child support can erase a wider array of debts than is typically the case, thereby preventing private creditors from competing with child support claims in a post-bankruptcy environment. This is an important point that I think everyone should realize. Under the Senate bill, child support will never compete with private creditors after bankruptcy. This is a unique feature of this year's Senate bill, so many Members may not be aware of it. I would ask Senators interested in child support and bankruptcy to study section 314 of the bill. S. 625 also makes Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code permanent. This means that America's family farms are guaranteed the ability to reorganize as our farm economy continues to be weak. As we all know from our recent debate on emergency farm aid, while prices have rebounded somewhat recently, farmers in my home State of Iowa and across the Nation are getting some of the lowest prices ever for pork, corn and soybeans. Clearly, this bill is an important step in preserving the integrity of our farming economy and preserving the family farm. S. 625 contains changes to deal with the complex problem of international bankruptcies. S. 625 will speed up the Chapter 11 process for small businesses and will reduce the risk of domino-like failures in financial markets. In Conclusion, S. 625 is good for family farmers, good for small businesses, good for single parents who depend on child support and good for consumers. If you care about making people in string financial shape pull their own weight, you should vote for this bill. If you care about the lax morality associated with letting people who have the clear ability to pay walk away from their debts with no question asked, you should vote for this bill. When the time comes, I'm sure that common sense will reign and the Senate will pass S. 625, with strong support.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I rise in support of an amendment I am sponsoring with Senator Conrad to establish trade negotiating objectives for the new round of multilateral trade negotiations the United States will help launch in about four weeks with 133 other WTO member nations in Seattle. The principles contained in this amendment are important because the upcoming negotiations in agriculture are so vital to our farm economy, and vital to the United States. The last multilateral trade round, the Uruguay Round, established, for the first time, multilateral rules on market access, export subsidies, and domestic support for agriculture. But as significant as the Uruguay Round was for agriculture, it was only a first step. Much remains to be done. Agricultural tariffs in industrial countries still average more than 40 percent, compared with tariffs of 5 to 10 percent in manufactured goods. The average world agricultural tariff is 56 percent. In the United States, it is 3 percent. But tariffs for some agricultural products reach 200 percent or more. Export subsidies are still far too high, and distort trade in third- country markets. Producer subsidy equivalents, which measure assistance to producers in terms of the value of transfers to farmers generated by agricultural policy, are also far higher in the European Union than in the United States. These transfers are paid either by consumers or by taxpayers in the form of market price support, direct payments, or other support. The Producer subsidy equivalent for all agricultural products in the EU has averaged around 45 percent. In the United States, the producer subsidy equivalent is only 16 percent. So-called ``Blue Box'' spending is also out of control. This is the trade-distorting spending that was authorized in the Uruguay Round. Currently, the United States has no programs that fall within the Blue Box. But the European Union maintains huge trade-distorting subsidy payments. We should finally admit that the Blue Box is a mistake, and eliminate it completely. State trading enterprises allow some countries to undercut United States exports into third markets and restrict imports. And the principle of sound science is being thwarted with regard to bio-engineered products, to the great detriment of our farm economy. We need to address all of these issues in the upcoming WTO negotiations. But we also need to make certain that when we negotiate with our trading partners, that the deal we finally implement is the one that was actually negotiated, and not a different agreement that was changed later through secret understanding or side arrangement. This is an important principle of international law. It is also a basic principle of equity and fairness. Only after the WTO Agreement was signed into law did some of us in the Senate learn for the first time that there was more to the Uruguay Round agreement than we originally thought, due to secret side agreements. This must not happen again. The amendment I am offering with Senator Conrad will insure that this practice will end. The only trade deal that should be enforced is the one the parties actually negotiated. I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, so that we can get this new round of trade negotiations off to the best possible start.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with a feeling of disappointment that I come to the floor today. What's bothering me is a disturbing report I am releasing today on the Office of the Inspector General, or IG, at the Department of Defense, DOD. This is about a report prepared by the Majority Staff of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, of which I am the Chairman. I have always had such great respect for the DOD IG. I have always thought that we could rely on that office to be fair and independent and thorough, and above all, honest. In the past, I always felt like I could trust the DOD IG's judgment. This report, Mr. President is disturbing. The evidence in this report questions the credibility of the IG's investigative process. And it raises questions about the judgment of the Acting IG, Mr. Donald Mancuso. It is a report on the Oversight Investigation of allegations of misconduct at the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, or DCIS. DCIS is the criminal investigations arm of the DOD IG. The allegations examined by the Staff involve possible misconduct by DCIS agents between 1993 and 1996. The current Acting DOD IG, Mr. Mancuso, is associated with the allegations. Mr. Mancuso was the Director of DCIS from 1988 until 1997, when he became the Deputy DOD IG. I also understand that Mr. Mancuso is a potential candidate for nomination to be the next DOD IG. In June 1999, the Staff was approached by a former DCIS agent, Mr. William G. Steakley. Mr. Steakley raised numerous allegations regarding prohibited employment practices at DCIS, but these were far too extensive and complex to be examined by my small Subcommittee staff. However, one of Mr. Steakley's allegations caught our attention. This was the allegation that DCIS officials had ``made false statements'' in adverse reports on his conduct. Mr. Steakley alleged that an agent assigned to the DCIS internal affairs unit, Mr. Mathew A. Walinski, had a history of falsifying investigative reports to damage the reputations of fellow agents. Mr. Steakley further alleged that senior DCIS management, including Mr. Mancuso, was fully aware of the allegations about this agent's unethical practices, yet failed to take appropriate corrective action. And Mr. Steakley claimed he had proof to back up the allegations. The staff conducted a careful examination of these allegations and concluded that some have merit. To evaluate the allegations, the staff reviewed numerous documents to include the extensive files at the Office of Special Counsel, OSC, DOD personnel files, and DCIS investigative reports. The staff also conducted a number of formal interviews. A careful review of all pertinent material makes one point crystal clear: The evidence shows that Mr. Walinski fabricated his reported interview of the Air Force payroll technician, Ms. Nancy Gianino, on May 21, 1993. This reported interview was conducted in connection with the investigation of possible tax evasion charges against Mr. Steakley. In addition, OSC files contain numerous references to a second internal affairs case handled by Mr. Walinski, in which he apparently fabricated another report. When the staff asked the DOD IG for this case file--known as the Johanson stolen gun case, they discovered that Mr. Walinski had apparently fabricated the reported interview of Agent Jon Clark on March 2, 1994 and possibly others. This file contains sworn statements by the agents involved that Walinski's reported interview with Clark never took place. These two cases--when taken together--show that Mr. Walinski has a history of falsifying reports. And more importantly, the record shows that rank and file complaints about Mr. Walinski's unethical investigative practices went directly to top DCIS management, including Mr. Mancuso. The record also shows DCIS management knew about the Walinski problem but failed to take appropriate corrective action. Yet despite rank and file complaints, Mr. Walinski's false reports were used by DCIS management to discredit and punish Agents Johanson and Steakley. In January 1999, Mr. Walinski was allowed to transfer to another federal law enforcement agency--the Treasury IG--with no record of punishment or accountability. In his new assignment, Mr. Walinski is still responsible for investigating employee misconduct. In fact, the record shows that at least 3 weeks after DCIS management was informed that Mr. Walinski had fabricated the Clark interview, he was given a generous cash bonus award. Moreover, Mr. Walinski was assigned to conduct an inspection of the field office where rank and file complaints about his false reports had originated. While investigating Mr. Steakley's allegations, the staff discovered that the DCIS internal affairs unit--to which Mr. Walinski was assigned--was directed by Mr. Larry J. Hollingsworth. Mr. Hollingsworth was convicted of a felony in U.S. District Court in March 1996. He was apprehended and confessed to filing a fraudulent passport application after a fellow agent recognized his photo in a law enforcement bulletin. The government authorities, who investigated Mr. Hollingsworth's criminal conduct, believe that he committed about 12 overt acts of fraud. These overt acts of fraud were committed while Mr. Hollingsworth was Director of the DCIS internal affairs unit--Mr. Walinski's office. Mr. President, can you imagine that? The head of the internal affairs unit of DOD's criminal investigative division was committing passport fraud. That's certainly a confidence builder in that organization, isn't it? These authorities further believe Mr. Hollingsworth's actions were especially disturbing since passport fraud is usually committed in furtherance of a more serious crime, but the underlying crime was never discovered. Although Mr. Mancuso and Mr. Hollingsworth were considered friends by associates, Mr. Mancuso failed to recuse himself from administrative actions affecting Mr. Hollingsworth. Mr. Mancuso even aided in Hollingsworth's defense during criminal trial proceedings--even though Mr. Hollingsworth was considered uncooperative. What's more, Mr. Mancuso endorsed an outstanding performance rating for Mr. Hollingsworth three weeks after he confessed to felonious activity to U.S. State Department special agents. Mr. Mancuso even wrote a letter on official DOD IG stationary to the sentencing judge, Judge Ellis, on the convicted felon's behalf. In this letter, he asked the judge to consider extenuating circumstances. He told the judge that Mr. Hollingsworth had taken a half day's leave to file the fraudulent passport application. Evidently, Mr. Mancuso thought that taking leave to commit a crime was sonehow exculpatory. This is what Mr. Mancuso said in his letter to Judge Ellis, and I quote: ``Mr. Hollingsworth could have come and gone as he pleased,'' but he ``took leave to commit a felony.'' Mr. Mancuso concluded with this telling remark: ``To this day, there is no evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth has ever done anything improper relating to his duties and responsibilities as a DCIS agent and manager.'' Coming from a law enforcement officer like Mr. Mancuso, these words defy understanding. The last time I checked, part of doing your job as a law enforcement officer is not committing crimes. Mr. Hollingsworth confessed to and was convicted of felonious activity while employed by DCIS as a criminal investigator. As State Department agents put it, these crimes were committed in the furtherance of a more serious crime that was never discovered. Unfortunately, Mr. Mancuso seems to have been completely blind to the problem. As a result of a series of decisions--personally approved by Mr. Mancuso, Mr. Hollingsworth was allowed to remain in an employed status at DCIS for 6 months after his felony conviction. He was then allowed to retire with a full federal law enforcement annuity exactly on his 50th birthday in September 1996. Had Mr. Mancuso exercised good judgement and other available legal options, Mr. Hollingsworth could have been removed from DCIS immediately after conviction--in March 1996. Under these circumstances, he would have been forced to wait 12 years--until the year 2008--to begin receiving a non-law enforcement annuity commencing at age 62. Had Mr. Mancuso exercised this option, he would have saved the taxpayers at least $750,000.00, which is the amount of money Mr. Hollingsworth will collect thanks to the generous treatment he received from his friend and colleague, Mr. Mancuso. Think of the signal this sends to rank and file law enforcement officers who look to their managers for leadership and fair treatment. The office of the DOD IG demands the highest standards of integrity, judgment, and conduct. Does Mr. Mancuso meet those standards? Given Mr. Mancuso's poor judgment and his irresponsible handling of the three cases examined in the staff report, I believe it is reasonable to question: (1) Whether Mr. Mancuso should now be nominated and confirmed as the DOD IG; (2) Whether Mr. Mancuso should be allowed to remain in the post he now occupies--Acting DOD IG; And given the evidence that Mr. Walinski falsified several investigative reports, it is reasonable to question whether he should be assigned to a position at the Treasury Department in which he is responsible for conducting criminal and administrative inquiries. Mr. President, today I am forwarding the Majority Staff report to the appropriate committees, the Secretaries of Defense and Treasury and other officials. These officials must evaluate Mr. Mancuso's fitness to serve as the DOD IG as well as Mr. Walinski's continued assignment as a criminal investigator. I hope they will take the time to review this report before making a final decision on these matters. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to have printed two documents in the Record: (1) A letter of comment from Mr. Mancuso; and (2) the Majority Staff report. I know it's a lengthy report, and the GPO says it will cost $2,282.00 to print. But leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that a person of the highest integrity occupies the key watch dog post of DOD IG is well worth that cost, in my view.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think it is imperative that Congress continue to send the strongest possible signal only that the highest standards and integrity are acceptable among our law enforcement and watchdog communities, the more we will ensure that outcome. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at 10:00 AM and at 2:00 PM to hold two Nomination Hearings.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at 10:00 a.m., in The President's Room, The Capitol, to conduct a mark-up.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 1999, to conduct a hearing on ``The World Trade Organization, its Seattle Ministerial, and the Millennium Round.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, for purposes of conducting a Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands Management hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the recent announcement by President Clinton to review approximateley 40 million acres of national forest lands for increased protection.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at 10:30 a.m., in Dirksen Room 226, to conduct a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. We thank the Senator very much.

Mr. GRASSLEY. All of you.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment I am sponsoring with Senator Conrad to establish a new, limited Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for farmers and fishermen. There are two key reasons why this new program is so necessary, and why Senator Conrad and I are offering this legislation. The first and most important reason is that the existing Trade Adjustment Assistance Program simply does not work for farmers. When a sudden surge in imports of an agricultural commodity dramatically lowers prices for that commodity, and sharply reduces the net income for family farmers, these farmers are undeniably hurt by import competition. They are just as hurt as steel workers, or auto workers, or textile workers who experience the same thing. But because farmers lose income, but not their jobs, they do not qualify for the existing Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers program. The reduction in family farm income from important competition hurts farmers in a very serious way, because it comes at a time when farmers desperately need cash assistance to repay their operating loans and adjust to the import competition. The second reason why I offer this legislation is to correct an inequity that should not continue. The inequity is that it is clear that President Kennedy, who designed the original Trade Adjustment Assistance program as part of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, clearly intended farmers to benefit from the program, just as much as other workers hurt as a result of a federal policy to reduce barriers to foreign trade. In his message to the Congress on the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, President Kennedy spoke about his Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. In fact, in his March 12, 1962 message, he referred to farmers at least three times. Here is part of what President Kennedy said. I am recommending as an essential part of the new trade program that companies, farmers, and workers who suffer damage from increased foreign import competition be assisted in their efforts to adjust to that competition. When considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government. What President Kennedy said was so important I want to emphasize what he said: those who are injured by the national trade policies of the United States should not bear the brunt of the impact. And trade adjustment assistance should be available for companies, farmers, and workers. Mr. President, this is simply an issue of fairness. Basic American fairness. The United States has lead the world in liberalizing trade. We started this process of global trade liberalization in 1947, when most of the world was reeling from the enormous physical and economic devastation of World War Two. We saw then that the way to avoid this type of catastrophe in the future was to bring nations closer together through peaceful trade and open markets. That process has been spectacularly successful. Through eight series, or rounds, of multilateral trade negotiations, we have scrapped ten of thousands of tariffs. Many non-tariff trade barriers have been torn down. Others have been sharply reduced. The result of 50 years of trade liberalization has been the creation of enormous wealth and prosperity, and millions of new jobs. But not everyone has prospered. Some have been injured by this deliberate policy of free trade and open markets. And that's exactly why President Kennedy and the 87th Congress created the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. To help those injured by our national policy of free trade and open markets adjust to their changing circumstances with limited assistance. President Kennedy's Secretary of Labor, Arthur J. Goldberg put it the best. Secretary Goldberg said: As a humane Government, we recognize our responsibility to provide adequate assistance to those who may be injured by a deliberately chosen trade policy . . . It is because of the desire to do justice to the people who are affected. . . Mr. President, we cannot do justice by helping only some of the people affected by our national trade policy. We cannot do justice by ignoring farmers. We must do justice by ignoring farmers. We must reach out to everyone, including farmers, just as President Kennedy envisioned. Now, I know there are some in this Chamber who believe that we should wait to make changes in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program until we can do a full review of the entire TAA program. I do not agree with that view, for a very fundamental reason. We are only about four weeks away from the start of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle. In Seattle, the United States will help launch the ninth series, or round, of multilateral trade negotiations since 1947. A key goal of the Seattle Ministerial will be to liberalize world agricultural markets even more. This will mean increased import competition for American agricultural products, not less. Farmers have always been among the strongest supporters of free trade, because so much of what they produce is sold in the international marketplace. The income our farm families earn in these foreign markets sustains our economy, and contributes greatly to our national well-being. But farm support for free trade cannot, and should not, be taken for granted. As I said in support of this legislation last week, we are in the worst farm crisis since the depression of the 1930s. Now, low commodity prices are not caused exclusively by import competition. But it is certainly a contributing factor to these historically low prices. If we lose the support of the farm community for free trade, Mr. President, I doubt that we will be able to win congressional approval for any new trade concessions that may be negotiated in the new round of trade talks. So this is all about fairness. It is about equality. It is about common sense. For all of these reasons, and because, as Labor Secretary Goldberg said 37 years ago, we must recognize our responsibility as a humane government, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to say some words about the loss of our mutual friend, John Chafee from Rhode Island. His passing away this week was obviously sad for all of us in this body, as well as his family and his friends. He has left an impressive legacy both for this body and for his service to the United States. I would like to take a few moments to express my thoughts about this truly heroic person. When I came to the Senate in 1981, Senator Chafee was already one of the body's giants. He was well respected. I remember the budget battles we had in those years in the early 1980s, and the impact he had as a leader of moderate Republicans--usually about half dozen or so Senators who always had a major influence on the budget process. Disagree though some of us might with Senator Chafee's position on these issues, there was no disagreement among any of us that the results of his efforts were always a moderating influence on what this body did. I served with Senator Chafee on the Finance Committee for many years--the committee that has jurisdiction over taxes, over Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, foreign trade, and welfare. He had a passion; that was to preserve the safety net programs, and especially in the health sector. He was a strong supporter of the Community Health Center Program of Medicaid, and most importantly children's health programs. In fact, one of the last meetings in which I joined Senator Chafee was his handling of a hearing a week ago in which he was proposing and forwarding legislation to make sure that people who were part of the foster care system did not fall through the cracks as far as their health care was concerned once they were forced out of the system because of age. Above all else, Senator Chafee, as demonstrated by that hearing last week and his promotion of that legislation, was committed to the proper amount of health care and quality of health care. He also worked long and hard in a very generic area we call health care reform, sometimes minuscule fine-tuning, but also Senator Chafee was in the middle of the big battles of health care reform. During the time the Senate was considering the Clinton health care plan, then-majority leader Bob Dole appointed Mr. Chafee to chair a Republican health care reform task force. Senator Chafee for several months convened meetings every Thursday in his Capitol office. During those meetings, he led discussions on various aspects of health care reform. I had an opportunity to participate in a lot of those meetings and know firsthand Senator John Chafee's commitment not only to informing and providing the procedure for informing fellow Members about the issue but also his efforts working toward compromise that would eventually get the votes to bring legislation to the floor and through the Senate. The work we did in this task force culminated in a major health care reform bill that had the support of most of our Republican colleagues. It was a major achievement, needless to say. It wasn't something that finally was passed by this body because the whole Clinton health care issue got so overburdened with so many controversial aspects that the Clinton health care proposal went down, and compromises, more moderate and more bipartisan, obviously, were taken off the Senate's agenda at the same time. That still does not denigrate in any way the hard work of John Chafee on health care generally. In fact, it is a very good example of his hard work and, most importantly, his commitment to the overall issue, over a long period of time, leading up to that last hearing he chaired just 1 week ago. More recently, Senator Chafee urged the modernization of the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program. It is likely, as we go further down the road, that Senator Chafee will have had much influence on what we as a body produce even though he is no longer with us. In that regard, his influence will certainly have outlived his own life. That is a hallmark of a truly great man and a great Senator. I, along with my colleagues, will miss Senator Chafee for many reasons. I respected him. I liked him. I listened to him. I looked to him as a leader. He spoke with authority and with credibility. Most importantly, he was a very compassionate person. Above all, what is important in political leadership is that he was very independent. He stood up for what he believed in, sometimes in the face of opposition from even his own party, my party, the Republican Party. That is the quality of John Chafee I grew to admire most. Senator Chafee's legacy is his extraordinary service to his country. The way he knew to serve was in a very mighty way, whether it was on the battlefield as a genuine war hero or his service as Governor, Secretary of the Navy, or for 23 years as a Member of the Senate from Rhode Island. Not everyone is capable of making a big difference in this world, but John Chafee did. We salute him. I salute him, his life, and his accomplishments. I join my colleagues in remembering his greatness and appreciating the contributions he made to this country.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this morning Senator Conrad offered an amendment which I cosponsor. I ask my colleagues to consider voting for this amendment that will make the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program available for farmers as well as industrial workers. This program, trade assistance, is being reauthorized in this legislation. This amendment would expand it just a little bit. President Clinton, about a month ago in an address spoke about one- third of the jobs that have been created during his administration have come as a result of opening foreign trade and all the economic activity that takes place because of foreign trade. If we can have millions of jobs created during this administration because we have had a 50-year history of breaking down trade barriers between countries, we have to conclude that the liberalization of trade is good for American workers and good for our economy. Free trade has produced many winners in our economy. This has been true since 1947 when the United States and just 22 other countries created the regime for liberalized trade we have been under since 1947 called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Since 1987, we have had eight series--sometimes they are called rounds--of multilateral trade negotiations to break down these barriers. These multilateral trade negotiations have liberalized trade in many sectors. Tens of thousands of tariffs have been scrapped. Many nontariff trade barriers have been eliminated. Others have been sharply reduced. The result of 50 years of trade liberalization has meant the creation of enormous wealth and prosperity and, as I have said, millions of new jobs, one-third of the new jobs created just in this decade. But whenever you have a free market economy, probably even when you have a regimented economy, as the socialist countries have had, there is always some adjustment in the economy. There are some winners and some losers; that is true in our economy, and it is true in the foreign trade part of our economy. For this reason, more than 35 years ago President Kennedy and the 87th Congress thought it was only fair to transfer some of the net gain from free trade to injured workers or firms or industries or even entire communities. The first U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance Program was designed by President Kennedy and authorized by the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to help workers dislocated as a result of a Federal policy to reduce barriers to foreign trade. It is very important for the purposes of our amendment and also the spirit of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act to hear what President Kennedy, its author, had to say about its intent and scope: I am recommending as an essential part of the new trade program that companies, farmers, and workers who suffer damage from increased foreign import competition be assisted in their efforts to adjust to that competition. When considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government. What President Kennedy said was so important, and I emphasize, once again, a small part of it: Trade adjustment assistance should be available for companies, farmers, and workers. In spite of President Kennedy's belief that farmers should be able to get relief from trade adjustment assistance, just like others who suffer from trade-related job losses, the reality is, few, if any, individual family farmers are ever able to qualify for this program. Hence the amendment by Senator Conrad and myself that is offered today to address this inequity. Senator Conrad and I think it is only fair that not only farmers be included but fishermen be added to this group as well. They are workers, they help put food on our tables, and they have the same problems under the current program as farmers. Our program will create a limited new trade adjustment assistance for farmers program. It will provide cash assistance to farmers and fishermen when the price of a commodity falls sharply as a result of imports and causes a farm's net income to drop. The formula ensures farmers will recover a portion, but not all, of the income lost due to import competition. This is not an open-ended program. Assistance is capped at $10,000 per farmer and a total of $100 million per year, and, of course, as must be under the Budget Act, this Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is paid for. In order to qualify for this limited Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, farmers will have to consult with the USDA's Extension Service to develop a plan for adjusting to the import competition. In about 5 weeks, the United States will launch a new round of global trade talks with 133 other WTO--World Trade Organization--member countries. That is an extension of the organization that started out with 22 countries in 1947 for this regime of liberalizing trade. In 5 weeks, these talks start. Farmers have always been among the strongest supporters of free trade because so much of what they produce is sold in overseas markets. In fact, there is an absolute necessity of selling overseas because, even in normal production, we produce a third more than can be domestically consumed. Profitability and farming must come by selling the surplus overseas. The income our farm families earn in these foreign markets sustains our economy and contributes greatly to our national well-being. Farm support for free trade cannot and should not be taken for granted by the rest of the people in this country who benefit from free trade. We are in the worst farm crisis since the Depression of the thirties. Low commodity prices are not caused exclusively by import competition, and I do not mean to imply that. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is caused because a lot of our markets overseas have been hurt by the financial crisis that started 2 1/2 years ago in the Far East. But, of course, in our complex economy, even in our complex agricultural economy, trade might be a contributing factor to these historically low prices. Through trade adjustment assistance, we look after Americans who are harmed by import competition but not farmers. Through trade adjustment assistance, we have looked after communities harmed by import competition but not farm communities. Between 1979 and 1996, 12 trade adjustment assistance centers in the United States assisted about 6,130 firms with petitions for trade adjustment assistance. During this same 17-year period, these centers assisted only 200 food growers and processors, 200 firms in 17 years that were nonindustrial. But these firms were not individual family farms. I am concerned that if we lose farm support for free trade, it will be very hard, and perhaps impossible, to win congressional approval for new trade deals when these negotiations conclude among these 133 countries. Fairness, equity, common sense, and, most importantly, the original intent of President Kennedy's program, all tell us that farmers and fishermen should and must be a part of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. So as Senator Conrad did this morning, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on the Africa trade bill, which is now before the Senate, we are in a parliamentary position in which all the amendments offered have been offered by the Republican side. Such a position had to be taken by the majority leader because of failures to get time agreements and commitments from the other side, meaning the Democrat side, on a limitation on amendments and time agreements on those amendments so we could bring this bill to a vote. I hope our Democrat friends will heed the necessity of this legislation from President Clinton's State of the Union Address that this was one of the most important goals of his administration. Since the Republican majority in the Congress is often criticized by the President for not working closely with the President--and I think those charges by the President of the United States are overblown most times, but those charges are still made. So in the present environment in which one of the President's prime pieces of legislation is before the Senate, with a determination by our majority leader to help get this part of the President's program into law, I would think the Democrat minority would be embarrassed that they are taking actions that make it difficult to get one of the President's programs through this Congress for the President's signature. I hope, as one Senator--not speaking for the majority leader, just speaking for myself--they will reach agreement on these very important amendments so we can bring this bill to finality and get it sent to the President, not because it is one of the President's major goals, not that it shows the President's charges against the Republican majority are many times unfounded, not for any of those reasons, as legitimate as that might be, but because the substance of this legislation is very important for the economy of the United States and the economy of the countries that it applies to--because free trade strengthens economies, free and fair trade creates jobs, not only in the United States, but also economies that practice free trade anywhere around the world are stronger economies because of it. That is the goal we seek in this legislation. We have heard we have a lot to fear from free trade. In the last few months, we have heard from many quarters that free trade is harmful because it destroys jobs. We have heard free trade is not fair trade because it causes investments to shift overseas. We have heard that the Africa trade bill will do both of these things, as well as cause illegal transshipment that we cannot do anything about. When you look at the facts, none of these three arguments that are used against this piece of legislation has any merit. First, let's look at the claim that free trade destroys jobs. The 50-year history of the multilateral trade negotiations, first under the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, and now under the World Trade Organization, called WTO for short, shows the enormous positive effect on the world economy of liberalizing trade by reducing tariffs and getting rid of nontariff trade barriers. We have had eight series, or rounds as they are called, of multilateral trade negotiations since GATT first started in 1947. We are about to launch a new round, the ninth one, at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle in about 5 weeks. During the first round, the Geneva Round it was called, in 1947, we negotiated 45,000 tariff concessions affecting one-fifth of world trade. In the sixth round, which was called the Kennedy Round, we slashed custom duties on average of 35 percent. During the last round, the Uruguay Round, starting in the middle 1980s, ending in 1993, we reduced or eliminated many nontariff trade barriers. The results of this trade liberalization have been nothing short of astounding--creating jobs, expanding the world economic pie, creating better economies in various countries around the world, enhancing political opportunities and, most importantly, political stability. The expansion of free trade that has followed this 50-year period of trade liberalization has spurred one of the greatest bursts of wealth creation the world has ever seen. In 1947, when we started postwar trade liberalization, the total value of world exports was about $50 billion. Today, the total value of world exports is $7 trillion, more than 3\1/2\ times the total budget of the United States. Free trade has enriched every American family. According to the President's own 1998 economic report, the added economic benefit to each American through expanded trade is $1,000 per year or $4,000 per year for a family of four, as we measure families in America. This is equivalent to an annual $4,000 per family tax cut. Where can one get a $4,000 tax cut these days? Even the tax cuts now being debated in the Congress do not come anywhere close to this amount of money to enhance family income and disposable income. The facts that show the benefits of free trade seem to be so compelling that in explaining them, I don't know where to begin. Let me mention a recent example that comes from NAFTA. According to a September 1998 report published by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, approximately 191,000 jobs were certified, between January 1, 1949, and August 12, 1998, as potentially suffering NAFTA- related loss--affecting 191,000 workers. That is on the negative side. We have always said that free trade will cause some job dislocation. That is why we have programs such as trade adjustment assistance--to ease the transition that is sometimes necessary when we have open markets. On the positive side, there has been much more gain. Let's go back to that Congressional Research Service study I cited. The number, 191,000 workers affected negatively by NAFTA over 4 years, represents less than the number of jobs created in any single month in 1997. In contrast, then, on the positive side, more than 1 million new jobs were created from new exports to Mexico and Canada after NAFTA was enacted into law--more than 1 million new jobs. Next let's look at the claim that is made by opponents of this legislation or free trade generally that it causes investment to shift overseas. That claim, too, has little or no merit. Section 512 of the NAFTA Implementation Act required the President to provide a comprehensive assessment of the operation and effects of NAFTA to Congress. The President's report shows that the amount of new United States investment in Mexico is very low. Again, the specific facts are compelling. In 1997, direct United States investment in Mexico was $5.9 billion compared to United States domestic investment in plant and equipment of $864.9 billion. In other words, United States investment in Mexico was less than 1 percent of all United States domestic investment in plant and equipment in 1997. So much for that giant sucking sound we were supposed to have heard continuously from south of our border. Free trade has been so good for our economy. If all these predictions about economic disaster haven't come true when we have liberalized trade in the past, it is clear we shouldn't fear tearing down barriers around the world, as we have for the last 50 years with the good results we have for the 50 years, without the expectation that those beneficial impacts would continue. We should, then, embrace such an opportunity. Let me get specifically to the Africa trade bill. The fear that the Africa trade bill will cause a huge influx of illegal textile transshipments from Asia, as has been stated on the floor of the Senate, just is not true. I cite the International Trade Commission study, our own Government. It looked at the transshipment issue. Here is what our International Trade Commission found: Assuming we will get illegal transshipments in a worst case scenario, the ITC study shows that U.S. apparel shipments would drop by one-tenth of 1 percent and result in the loss of less than 700 jobs. Again, to put this number in perspective, the U.S. economy has created about 200,000 jobs each month this year. Remember, the ITC study guesstimate of 700 jobs is based on a worst case scenario. It is highly unlikely, then, that sub-Saharan Africa will see this level of export growth in the near term. They don't have the infrastructure. They don't have the trained workforce. They don't have good transportation. And the Africa bill has strong anti- transshipment provisions. One might say, then, why the big deal about the Africa trade bill? Because trade is better than foreign aid and because, when you want to build up the economies of the developing nations, you start someplace. This is how we can best help them to help themselves. Participating countries will have to commit to full cooperation with the United States to address and take any necessary action to prevent transshipment. The spirit of this legislation is that there not be transshipment. In addition, the U.S. Customs Service has effective procedures to thwart illegal transshipments, as Customs jump teams have proven to be successful in doing in both Hong Kong and Macao. And there are many other provisions aimed at preventing transshipments. So free trade works. Free trade creates jobs and prosperity in the United States, adding $4,000 every year in economic benefits to each American family at home. Free trade keeps the peace by building interdependence among nations, and by bringing political stability to nations that heretofore have relied upon dictators and relied upon a government- controlled economy. Finally, free trade will help Africa break the shackles of poverty by bringing economic freedom to the most economically unfree and also the poorest regions in the world. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment, No. 2335, be temporarily laid aside in order for Senator Reid of Nevada to offer an amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of that amendment, amendment No. 2335 become the pending business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this resolution I am offering with Senator Baucus calls for fair access to Japan's $35 billion telecommunications equipment market. Telecommunications is one of our most important exports and one of our most significant areas for future export growth. Recently, the United States and Japan reached a new telecommunications procurement agreement covering procurement by the successor companies of the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Company. This agreement replaced the 1997 agreement that expired when the Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Company was restructured. We have had many difficulties gaining access to Japan's telecommunicates market in the past, probably not too different from a lot of sectors as we try to enter our products into Japan. It may be nothing new in that respect, but this is a new agreement that will be in effect for 2 years, and we should give it a chance to work. But history shows we have not made much progress when it comes to implementing fair bilateral market access agreements with Japan. You know the usual story: We are always overjoyed, after several months or even years of negotiating an agreement with the Japanese, that it has been some major breakthrough; and then down the road a few months or years, when you expect the agreement to be carried out--not only according to its word but also according to its spirit--you find the victory you anticipated and were thankful for at the time it was signed comes out to be a half a loaf or a quarter of a loaf in practice. I think that is what we are finding out here a little bit with this telecommunications agreement. The Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Company and the government in Japan, which owns 65 percent of the telecommunications group, have traditionally maintained that Nippon Telegraph and Telephone is a private company which should not be subject to government interference but be allowed to make its own procurement decisions. Our concern is that we need effective bilateral government oversight so Japan's telecommunications industry does not revert to its traditional reliance upon domestic suppliers and consequently circumvent this agreement. That is because Nippon Telegraph and Telephone's procurement history shows that even nearly two decades after the first bilateral agreement on this company's procurement, Japan still tends to make a large portion of its procurement from the ``NTT family'' of Japanese equipment makers; thus, not opening their markets to products from overseas, including U.S. products. Often, NTT over-engineers specifications, which in the past were very Japan- specific or company-specific--another nontariff trade barrier to keep out products from the United States and other countries. World telecommunications trade is growing very rapidly, but global market access is not keeping pace with the fast pace of technology development. The Baucus-Grassley resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the only effective way for the United States to achieve significant market access in Japan is through Japan staying with serious and sustained deregulation and consequently having market opportunities for imports from other countries, including the United States. This resolution carriers a message that ought to be heard loud and clear in the runup to the World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference that will take place in Seattle at the end of November. So I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this resolution.