Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. You don't want to jump on Ken Lay this morning. As the new majority leader, heavens above, I thought we got past Ken Lay. Now you want to jump on the poor fellow. Come on. I don't know, I think they are a little addled over there. What happens is, if the distinguished majority leader can tell me of any Governor in America with deficits who is running around talking about the percentage of his GDP--they would run Governor Bush out of Austin, TX, if he came out with that nonsense. But he comes up here and gets credibility. They have a drive on for dividend tax cuts that could not possibly help anybody until, of course, the election year. That is a Karl Rove instrumentality and strategy if there ever was. We understand that. But then--Karl will understand this--you are not going to be running on the talk shows with the President of the United States talking about the percentage of the GDP. We have to pay the bills. And what happens is, after President Bush came to town, we did raise taxes on Social Security. We raised taxes on gasoline. We raised income taxes. We couldn't get--Mr. President, the Presiding Officer should understand--we couldn't get a single Republican vote. And Vice President Gore had to come in here and break the tie in this body. So it happened at that time the other Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm of Texas, said: You folks raise taxes on Social Security, and they will be hunting you Democrats down in the street and shooting you like dogs. That is in the Congressional Record. Now that they have the White House, the House and the Senate, has any Republican asked that the increase in Social Security taxes be canceled? Oh, no. They are not interested in saving Social Security. They give you the words, but like John Mitchell says: Watch what we do, not what we say. They will say Social Security, but they will not come back and reduce the Social Security tax. They just couldn't think of it 10 years ago, and they have not been able to think otherwise for the past 10 years. We had the best 8 years of economic expansion, investment, and everything else, with the raising of taxes during the 1990s. And we are back into the same situation where we have already got a record deficit as of the end of the last fiscal year. The fiscal year 2002 ended on September 30 of last year with a $428 billion deficit. We are running $159 billion in the red already this year. You are already at $587 billion. That is approaching $600 billion in stimulus. That is stimulating the economy, money that you do not have, money that you have to go out and borrow--for which you are not going to pay back. We have had the most stimulative economic program that you could think of for 15 months, and it hasn't worked. The economy is worse. Why? On account of voodoo II. President Reagan started this nonsense of what you do is cut revenues, cut taxes, and therefore increase your revenues. We went from less than a $1 trillion debt before Reagan. We had 200 years of history, all the wars, and we had not reached $1 trillion in debt. Then we started this charade, which is all for the campaign and not for the country, because everybody can get reelected on cutting taxes. President Reagan said: Cut the taxes, cut the revenues, and we will grow out of it. As a result, we had the economic downturn in 1987, and we have had the economic downturn in 2001 with the tax cuts. Vice President Bush under Reagan called it voodoo. Now, young President Bush is giving us voodoo II, and young President Bush recommends voodoo III. Record deficits? Let me describe it so you can add it up and then subtract it. If you take all the deficits from 1945 up until 1976, 30 years, take the deficits of President Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford-- take 30 years of all the deficits, the deficits of World War II, the Korean war, the war in Vietnam--take all of those deficits, add them up, and you will come to $358 billion over the 30-year period. And in 1 year we have got $428 billion under this administration, and they still play the game. The Washington Post will not print the truth. They absolutely refuse to do it. All the other papers and everything else--I have gotten a few articles from time to time, but very few--just scattered, little squibs or anything else of that kind. What you end up doing, you have already got a record deficit. You are going to have record interest costs. We are going to war and immediately the cost of fuel is going up, the interest costs are going up, and we, instead of paying $1 billion a day, $360 billion or $365 billion a year in interest costs, we are going over $400 billion a year in debt. That $400 billion is just absolute waste, for nothing. We have to spend it each year. We come in here, but we are playing the political game. That is why this Senator is on the floor. I have been in the game 50 years. I never thought the Government would be turned into a campaign office. No one is concerned around here about the needs of the country. It is the needs of the campaign and the media. Jefferson spoke it best when he said: As between a free government and a free press, give me the latter. He knew as long as the free press would tell the truth to the American people, the people, through their representatives, would reflect the needs of the country. But that is not what the media does. It is a spectator sport. It is who is running and who is not running, who is elected and who is not elected, who may be elected and not be elected. They are not paying attention to needs. They are just like pollsters--what the polls show. No, I don't have any cosponsors for VAT, a value-added tax. But we ought to institute this, before the war. It is not the Volunteer Army going to war in Iraq, it is the United States of America, the country, going to war. That is why I put in the draft with Representative Charlie Rangel over on the House side. We need a sense of sacrifice and commitment and togetherness in this country. But all we have is partisan politics for the next campaign, and the media generates it. All the talk shows, ``Firing Line,'' ``Crossfire,'' ``Talk Back''--whatever they call those particular programs--they all offset each other, and they are supposed to make news. You can't get this printed. You cannot get the truth of how much came in and how much went out in any fiscal year. The truth is, by section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report in 1983, they said: Set aside a surplus in trust for the baby boomers in the next century. And we are now in the next century. There is no problem with Social Security if we adhere to it. It took me some 7 years to get it done. George Herbert Walker Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed into law section 13301 of the Budget Act. It says: Thou shalt not spend Social Security on anything other than Social Security. Today we are spending Social Security trust funds on anything and everything but Social Security. That is what is happening. We would have $1.3 trillion banked up, ready to go. There would be no privatized Social Security and all the problems we are going to solve in Social Security. They solve the political problem here in this body. It is politics. They all voted for it. President Bush I signed it into law. But they don't adhere to it. So I have another little amendment. In addition to paying for the war, I have one where the Secretary of Treasury has to certify that, in order for the tax cut to take effect, the government does not spend Social Security. I want to see how they vote on that. Any and all tax cuts, whether they have capital gains, dividends, marriage penalty, income--whatever they want to think of--let them pass it, but let it not take effect unless they can certify that it does not cost Social Security. Let's see how they vote on that. (Mr. CHAFEE assumed the chair.)

Mr. HOLLINGS. I'd be delighted.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to get the attention of the distinguished majority leader. Pending that, what brings this Senator to the floor is the headlines of the morning paper: ``Deficit Predictions Soar with Bush Stimulus Plan.'' The economists from Standard & Poor's is quoted as saying: I don't think it's a near-term concern. Then, of course, as the story follows on page 6, the headline is to the effect: ``Economic Plan Could Lead to a Record Deficit.'' I wanted the distinguished majority leader to send a message to Karl Rove. I cannot get the Washington Post to listen. I have been in here regularly for a good 10 years saying we are running record deficits. Now they have the chief economists saying this could lead to a record deficit. Let the record show on September 30, last year, at the end of fiscal year 2002, the CBO figure was $428 billion, a record deficit. Let's not come here in January and start talking about making records when we already have made a record. Everybody look up on their Internet, www.publicdebt.treas.gov, and you will see the public debt to the penny is already up some $155 to $159 or $160 billion. So we are already, in this year, $30 billion to $40 billion in the red ahead of last year. Of course, with the so-called tax cut of revenues, the cut of revenues under the Bush plan, we are bound to have an over $500 billion deficit. That is why I wanted to get the distinguished majority leader's attention because history is repeating itself. I remember 10 years ago President Bush I, as a result of Desert Storm, the gulf war success, was at all-time popularity. Then they looked economically with these headlines to a record deficit, and they had a $402 to $403 billion deficit. And the Governor of Arkansas beat him. That is exactly where we are headed this morning. I don't know why it is that you cannot get the truth out of these figures. I know what the economists are thinking. You get the money in and spend it and hold what they call the on-budget deficit and off- budget and unified and public debt and government debt. That is all tommyrot. There is not a Governor in America with deficits asking to cut the revenues. Ask Governor Bush in Texas if he would recommend this out of the Governor's office in Austin, they would have run him out of the State. Come to Washington and nobody listens. If he can carry a message, I think Karl Rove would listen because he is trying to reelect the President. ``Economic Plan Could Lead to Record Deficit,'' and he will be electing John Kerry. Maybe I can get their attention telling them that. Here it comes, 2 years ahead of time, the economic plan could lead to record deficit. It is almost like working in the CIA here. It is top secret when you talk the truth. I think the axiom of Mark Twain is correct. He said: The truth is such a precious thing it should be used very sparingly. Of course, that is the media with respect to the truth on the amount of money we take in, on the amount of money we spend. Let's go exactly back to 1992. At that particular time, Governor Clinton had just been nominated and invited Alan Greenspan, among others, down to Little Rock. Greenspan told the Presidential nominee: Look, you are coming up to Washington. You are not only going to have to cut spending, you are going to have to increase taxes. And Governor Clinton said: Are you serious? He said: That is exactly what the country needs. That is what you are going to do to get long-term investment. You are not going to get long-term investment with these deficits upon deficits, the debt going up, the interest costs going up, which I call interest taxes. When the President says he is cutting taxes, he is actually increasing taxes. They cannot be avoided. They have to be paid. Interest costs run at the rate of $1 billion a day. This morning at 8 o'clock, the first thing the Government did is add another $1 billion and add it to the debt. The distinguished Presiding Officer will pick up my bill. Senator Thurmond and I have gotten by. We are home free economically. But the next generation coming along will have to pick up our bill. In any event, President Clinton came to town. We submitted the plan, and we cut billions of spending, we raised taxes, and for the next eight years had the best economy we have ever had. The Senator from Tennessee, the distinguished majority leader, if I could get his attention. I ask my distinguished friend from Tennessee, I know you will see Karl Rove, and I want him to see he is leading his distinguished President into the same trap that Bush and I got led into. When you see these stories, Senator, to the effect that the economic plan could lead to record deficits, and they are quoting the chief economists of Standard & Poors, that is exactly where we were in 1992. President Bushsea dpwm I was the most popular President after that Desert Storm you could possibly find. And within a year's time, the economy was at a $400 billion deficit. The young Governor from Arkansas beat him, and this is what we have right now when you see the economic world saying there will not be any investment, when they are saying they will have record deficits.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I don't go with percentages, I go with reality. The reality is that the interest costs continue to go up.

Mr. HOLLINGS. They cannot run around here--everyone, to a man, every Republican, every Democrat, says: I want to save Social Security. But then they come around and continually spend it, and the American people wonder why. So the truth is, the economic plan ``could lead'' to a record deficit? The economic plan has led to a record deficit. The distinguished Presiding Officer should have been here. Of course, he couldn't because his distinguished father had the seat. But it was back in the 1980s. I recommended a value-added tax at that time. We had a hearing. I will have to get the gentleman's name from Holland--Dr. Cnossen. He was the Dutch expert who had written the value-added tax for Japan and Canada and helped update it with the United Kingdom. He testified. We needed the money. As we were going out of the Finance Committee room, John Chafee turned to Lloyd Bentsen, the chairman. This was the Finance Committee. He said, Lloyd, if we had a secret ballot, we would pass that out unanimously. That was almost 15 years ago. We had been running those deficits until we got into the 1990s, and we increased the taxes. We increased taxes on income. We increased taxes on gasoline. We increased taxes on Social Security and all of that. We had over a $400 billion deficit in 1992 when President Bush One left office. We brought it down in the early part of President Bush Two. We got it into the black. But then we passed the tax cuts. Voodoo Two. President Bush One was Vice President. He called it voodoo. He was right. This idea of cutting revenues and increasing revenues at the same time is bologna. Everybody knows it. We know from hard experience. Under President Reagan, under President Bush Two now, the Voodoo Two. Now we have before us the economic plan Voodoo Three. When will we ever learn? That was when I came to town. That was the song they were singing during Vietnam. ``When will we ever learn?'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. You like that, is that right?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I commend our distinguished friend from Illinois. He has brought into sharp focus our dilemma with respect to the prime initiative of President Bush with respect to education. I just finished a column for the local newspaper relative to symbols versus substance. You will find our Republican colleagues very strong on symbols but very weak on substance itself. Let me ask the question, rhetorically, of course: What Governor, what mayor--all of us are facing these deficits--is cutting taxes in the face of these deficits? With voodoo? In other words, all you have to do to fix the deficit is cut your revenues. We heard this under President Reagan, and Vice President Bush called it voodoo. We heard all you needed to do was to cut taxes and the people would have so much money they would spend and everything else. We would have consumer demand. You would have sales tax revenues. You would have income tax revenues, they would all increase, and we would just grow out of a deficit. At that time Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush No. 1, called it voodoo. We just had, last year and the year before, of course, voodoo II. A tax cut of $1.3 trillion plus interest costs $1.7 trillion. We are cutting the revenues and at the same time in the 4 years, and I want my colleagues to check the record and mark it down, the defense budget has gone in the last a little over 3, nearer 4 years from 1998 until now, from $271 billion to at least $371 billion. It will probably be nearer $386 billion. We have increased defense costs $100 billion. We have increased health costs $107 billion, when you look at Medicare and Medicaid and the veterans. But that does not include the community health centers or child health care, of course. So we spend another $200 billion there. We have increased agriculture, farm subsidies another $35 billion. While we are increasing the spending that both sides of the aisle support--health care, defense, and agriculture, some $235 billion--and then we cut the revenues $1.7 trillion, in voodoo, and we end up with a deficit. We are just like the States. Only there is no serious purpose up here for the needs of the country. It is only for the needs of the campaign. We have been using this Congress and the White House to campaign. The heck with the country. Despite having just completed one election, we're already looking at the next election. And the blooming media has gone along with us. They treat politics as a spectator sport, where they want to know who is up, who is down, who is announcing, who is quitting, who is doing this, and who is doing that. You can't get their attention on paying the bill. As a result, the debt has soared to $6.3 trillion. We will be debating next month about increasing the debt limit. I want to see how many of my colleagues will vote for that. They have increased the debt by cutting all the revenues, increasing all the spending, and saying: I am against the Government, the Government is too big, the Government is not the solution, the Government is the problem. I have sent to the desk a value-added tax. I want to increase taxes. I am sober. I am experienced. I got a triple A credit rating back in 1959 for the little State of South Carolina. I know what you have to do to pay the bill. I have been the chairman of our Budget Committee up here in the National Government, in the Senate. I can tell you, this is about my third try for a value-added tax. My bill will be referred to the Finance Committee. I know revenue measures under the Constitution derive in the House of Representatives. But I know also that we had a hearing back in the 1980s when we had this voodoo. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas was chairman of that committee. I brought Dr. Cnossen, the Hollander expert. He testified, because he knew he had helped the United Kingdom. He had written a value-added tax for Japan, for Canada--every industrialized country in the world save the United States has a value-added tax. That is one of the big deficiencies we have in international trade. They have a 15 percent to 17 percent advantage with their VAT. We have the disadvantage. When Dr. Cnossen testified, as they were leaving the room--I will never forget--former Senator John Chafee turned to Lloyd, the chairman, and he said, ``Lloyd, if we had a secret ballot we would vote it out of this committee unanimously.'' We needed the money to balance the budget. We tried with Gramm- Rudman-Hollings and had a temporary restraint on the Federal budget. But then instead of a prompter, a sword to prompt fiscal responsibility, it was used as a shield. We needed to take extreme action. But we didn't take it, and Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was out by 1992. Bush I was running a $400 billion deficit and lost office to the Governor of Arkansas. Let's get to the Governor of Arkansas. When Clinton got nominated, his friend Erskine Bowles from Charlotte got together business leaders and market experts. They went down to Little Rock. Along with them was Alan Greenspan. Greenspan told then-Governor Clinton--he said, When you come to Washington you are going to have to not only cut spending, you are going to have to increase taxes. Clinton said, Are you serious? He said, The country needs it. We are not going to have any investment, we are not going to have any jobs, until the Government starts paying down the debt. And paying down the debt was the 8-year chant on the floor of the Senate. You can't hear it now. You can't hear it now, about paying down the debt. You have to have tax cuts and so forth. One side says let's have, I don't know, a $700 billion, $800 billion, $900 billion tax cut. The other one says, no, only $200 billion or $300 billion. We are back into the ying and the yang. We had that under voodoo I, under Bush II, year before last, when he said he wanted $2.3 trillion in tax cuts. The Democrats come around and said $900 billion and we compromised at $1.3 trillion and with interest costs $1.7 trillion. That is what we are on course to do. Politicians go on the weekend shows chanting, I am for the rich, you are for the poor, the ying and yang, and it is all campaign applesauce. It is not for the good of the country. I am telling you what we need to do is pay for the war. We have a President, a Commander in Chief who says, look, I am going to send you to get killed in Iraq, or maybe North Korea, or wherever he is headed. He is going to ask you to fight and sacrifice, but we are not going to pay for it. We are going to have to run deficits. In past wars we ran deficits, but we paid for it at the particular time. What really happened? If you take all of the deficits for the last 30 years--right after World War II--under Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford--you take the sum total of all those deficits. It is $358 billion. We just finished the fiscal year--one year under Bush II--which does not include the cost of the real war. It was only an excursion in Afghanistan. The Congressional Budget Office says the excursion in Afghanistan and homeland security amounts to $35 billion at the most. But in one year we have run a deficit of $428 billion. And to what do we owe this amount? Guess what. We had a stimulus--I want everybody to hear this--a stimulus of $428 billion in the last fiscal year. We are already $159 billion in the red the first 3 months of this fiscal year. Added together, you have a $587 billion stimulus in the last 15 months. It hasn't worked. We are getting worse and worse. There is not going to be financial investment as long as we continue on this course. It is absolutely reckless to talk about whether any kind of a dividend can do it, or whether a marriage penalty can do it, or whatever else. They have to come around and argue about double taxation and everything else of that kind. We need to do both. We need to cut the spending and we need to increase the revenues. To accomplish this goal, we must have a value-added tax. I can tell you here and now that it will take a year to get this 1 percent value-added tax up and running. It will take a year to get it the administration worked out, and to get the different businesses to change around their computers and for the IRS to institute it. And when we do it will get about $35 or $40 billion, and we will begin a modest effort to pay for whatever war, whether it is a domestic war, an Iraqi war, a North Korean war, or some of the 14 peacekeeping operations. I can tell you now the military is stretched. That Reserve crowd that flies the C-17s in my backyard have been there since September 12, 2001. If they made $60,000 or $70,000 in private life, they are down now to $35,000 at the most. They cannot pay their rent. It is the same way with the National Guard. They are being called up everywhere in these particular cases. We need to come to grips with what we are doing and cut out the campaigning and start looking at the needs of the country. Specifically, every Senator says we are not going to spend Social Security. President Bush, in February the year before last, when he submitted his message to the Congress said: I am setting aside $2.6 trillion for Social Security. We have that, and more. In the law, it says: You shall not spend the Social Security surplus on anything other than Social Security. That is section 13301, recommended in section 21 of the Greenspan Commission. I dropped in a bill that requires the Secretary of the Treasury to certify that if there is a deficit there cannot be a tax cut. That tax cut--whatever they pass in this pandemonium, pell-mell rush for reelection--whatever tax cut they pass will not take effect until that on-budget surplus or on-budget deficit is zero. That is the test of not using Social Security moneys. I want to keep them honest. I have already introduced it as a bill. It won't be a surprise. I had it all ready last year. We couldn't even debate the budget last year. We were criticized on the Democratic side of the aisle for not bringing up the budget. But I say bring it up and we will get the votes and find out whether they really want to protect Social Security because they have been spending it on any and everything but Social Security. Under section 21 of the 1983 Greenspan Commission report, it said set these funds aside in trust for the baby boomers. There is nothing wrong with Social Security except how they spend it. Now we owe the Social Security trust fund $1.3 trillion because we have been spending it on any and everything other than Social Security. Let us not double talk the electorate. Let us remember to tell the truth to the American people. But I can tell you the bottom line is there is a $428 billion deficit for 2002, and we are $159 billion already in the red in first 3 months of 2003--in the last 15 months we have $600 billion of stimulus money that hasn't stimulated the economy. Another $30 billion or $40 billion a year is not going to stimulate it. So we are whistling ``Dixie.'' We are doing this not for the country but for campaigns. I want to say one more word with respect to the economy. We were having a hearing, and the distinguished Senator from Kansas talked about Boeing and how they just lost some 10,000 jobs. I reminded him that since NAFTA, we have lost 55,200 textile jobs. The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, reminded us how we lost the steel industry. We can go right on down. We have 6.3-percent unemployment in my little State of South Carolina. We are not manufacturing anything. We have exported the industrial backbone of the United States. What we have is not free trade. Now the Senator from Kansas understands that it is competitive trade. There are all kinds of subsidies. There is a standard of living. We require before you open up any manufacturing, you have to have clean air, clean water, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closing notice, parental leave, safe machinery, safe working places--go right on down the list--the highest standard of living. You can go to Mexico for 58 cents an hour, and you can go to China for less than that. They are leaving Mexico to go to China. They are all talking about free trade. Nothing is free. It is competitive. We have to rebuild the economic manufacturing capacity and strength of the United States. We need jobs. We are not going to have any jobs until we get a competitive trade policy. Otherwise we are not going to have any investment long-term because what we are doing is increasing interest on taxes. You cannot avoid it. The interest costs for the debt is growing at $1 billion a day right now. If we go to war, oil costs are going up, and interest costs are going up. Rather than $365 billion, interest costs are going to be up to $400 billion to $500 billion for just carrying the charges--for the privilege of campaigning and the politicians looking out for their reelection and not for the country. I am sorry to say this. But that is the truth. I see others are now ready to speak. I will speak at length otherwise with respect to the draft. There is no sense of sacrifice in this country. Our friend, Charlie Rangel, over on the House side, has put in the draft bill. In the beginning, I was opposed to the creation of an all volunteer force. So I put the draft bill in the Senate three other times. And I put it in now a fourth time day before yesterday because there has to be a sense and a feel of shared sacrifice. Don't come and tell us we have a strong economy, and I am sending you to get killed; and, this is a wonderful thing. We have to have more confidence in our commander in chief. He simply cannot just go to flag factories, get his sound bite early in the morning, rat-a-tat-tat sound bite, have two fundraisers at night, and let the country go to--you know what--in a hand basket. That is what is going on. We have to sober up. We have to pay for the war. There has to be a shared sacrifice and sense of it in this country. I think the country is ready, but the Government is not. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous that following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Illinois I be recognized.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have a whole list of every senator, and every candidate in last year's election, all coming out and saying we won't touch Social Security. The President of the United States promised Congress in his first address to a Joint Session in February 2001 that all Social Security surplus money will be budgeted for Social Security and Social Security only. Now that everyone is talking about cutting taxes, I do not want to forget the promises made on Social Security. I want to hold everyone to their word, because that is what the American people who depend on Social Security want as priority one. So, today, I am introducing a bill that says if the Treasury Secretary of the United States determines that if on October 1, 2003, there is a Federal on-budget deficit, future reductions in income tax rates will be suspended. Once the deficit no longer exists, the tax reductions can be put in place again. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to do away with tax cuts, so long as you can pay for them. The purpose of this Act is simply to ensure that no Social Security surpluses be used to pay for any further tax cuts. I want to make sure Social Security will be around when everyone retires. So I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this and make Social Security secure once and for all.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Defense Rail Act. This legislation is of vital importance to rail transportation, it provides funding for railroad security, Amtrak, investment in both freight and passenger rail, and the development of high speed corridors throughout the country. We have modified the security provision to reflect the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, otherwise, this is the same bill that the Commerce Committee reported last April by a vote of 20 to 3. I am joined by twenty five of my colleagues in introducing this bipartisan legislation. It is critical that the Senate take this bill up, and pass it, to ensure that our railroads are secure and we have adequate investment in both Amtrak and the development of high speed rail corridors to move us into the future.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have numerous inspirations in our Charleston, SC, community, but finally one unsung hero was heralded in the Post and Courier article this past Saturday. Armand Derfner spent his life fighting for the underdog, dedicated to civil rights. As a child of the Holocaust, his story is particularly inspirational. I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on H.R. 4883, a bill to reauthorize the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998. This legislation authorizes programs supporting NOAA's strategic missions to promote safe navigation and sustain healthy coasts. I am especially supportive of this bill because it improves the hydrographic services around our Nation and authorizes the activities of the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Corps. Last week Congress approved the conference report on the Maritime Transportation Security Act, which will enhance security in our Nation's ports. H.R. 4883 authorizes some key provisions to support that effort by authorizing and increasing the number of officers in our NOAA Corps and supporting establishment of real time hydrographic monitoring systems to enhance navigation and safety. NOAA's hydrographic programs share data and work closely with the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy, and such collaborations have increased since September 11, 2001. Accurate navigation information supports safe and efficient military deployment and seaport evacuation. About 90 percent of all military equipment and supplies for overseas operations are shipped out of U.S. ports. Seaports have always been an integral part of our Nation's commerce. Today, more than 95 percent of foreign trade by weight moves by sea, and trade is projected to double by 2020. Vessels are twice as large as they were 50 years ago, testing the capabilities of many ports. Increased ferry, cruise line, and recreational boating activities contribute a rise in seaport congestion. Each year there are about 3,500 commercial and 7,000 recreational boating accidents. The safe and efficient movement of products depends upon the marine transportation system. Advanced, highly accurate hydrographic, oceanographic and related data improve mariners' situational, three- dimensional awareness, which increases efficiency, reduces risk, and safeguards the marine environment. Such advanced data and services are an integral part of implementing an internationally compliant electronic chart display and information system. I am especially supportive and pleased that this bill includes language to reauthorize the NOAA Corps. The NOAA Corps, the smallest of the seven uniformed services of the United States, plays a very important role at NOAA and for the Nation. The service, consisting of approximately 265 commissioned officers, provides NOAA with professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries, science, and other related disciplines. The officers serve in assignments within the five major line offices of NOAA: National Ocean Service, NOS; National Weather Service, NWS; National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS; Oceanic and Atmospheric Research OAR; and National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, NESDIS. Officers operate ships, fly aircraft into hurricanes, lead mobile field parties, manage research projects, conduct diving operations, and serve in staff positions throughout NOAA. In addition they conduct hydrographic surveys along our Nation's coast in order to make our waters safe for marine commerce. The NOAA Corps is essential to NOAA's coverage of our seas and our skies; in hours of crisis, NOAA employees have been found issuing the tornado warnings that saved hundreds of lives from a deadly storm, flying into the eyes of hurricanes to gather information about possible landfall, fighting to free three gray whales trapped in the ice, fielding a massive scientific operation to guide the recovery from an oil spill, and monitoring via satellites the movement of hurricanes and other severe storms, volcanic ash and wildfires that threaten communities. As marine professionals, the NOAA Corps personnel may be transferred to the military services in times of national emergency, and this bill describes a number of technical areas designed to bring the NOAA Corps into line with Department of Defense standards in terms of rank, promotion and pay grade. This bill authorizes a gradual increase in the number of officers to accommodate the growing needs associated with new Navigation Response Teams that will be established and located in ports around the country. Finally, this legislation amends the Oceans Act of 2000 to ensure that the commission remains in existence 90 days after the date of the final submission of the report. This will allow the commission to provide advice to Congress on its report and on the President's implementation plan, but will not affect the due date established in the Act for submission of the Commission's report. The amendment would also authorize appropriations of $8.5 million; this increase reflects the resources necessary to hold nine regional meetings--three more than mandated by the Oceans Act. These regional meetings are essential to ensuring the views of all citizens are reflected in the work of the Commission, and I have fully supported this regional outreach effort, and the excellent work of the Ocean Commission and its staff. I want to thank my colleagues in the House of Representatives for working with me to create a bill that does so much to enhance the safety and navigation along our coasts.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NIST, Authorization Act. The bill is a routine authorization of appropriations for NIST. It includes some provisions to change the Institute's Advanced Technology Program that were the subject of hearings in the Commerce Committee earlier this year. In addition, the bill includes several technical changes to the NIST Act which the agency has requested. NIST is really a hidden treasure. Twice in the past five years, NIST Scientists have shared in the Physics Nobel Prize. Whether they are investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, making small manufacturers better, sponsoring innovative research, or improving timekeeping, the people of this little-noticed agency continue to do amazing work, and I commend them. Nonetheless, we continue to be embroiled in an annual tug-of-war on funding for the Advanced Technology Program, known as ATP. I am encouraged that Secretary Evans and Deputy Secretary Bodman want to stabilize this program. I am introducing this bill to help them in that cause by including several of the Department's suggestions to improve the ATP. The benefits of the ATP are well-documented. The program has been studied thoroughly from individual case studies, to comprehensive examinations like the 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council. The results are clear. ATP is stimulating collaboration, accelerating the development of high-risk technologies, and paying off for the nation. The Commerce Department has proposed several changes to the ATP. The bill includes provisions to allow universities to lead ATP projects and to have interest in the intellectual property developed under those projects, as well as provisions to further clarify that projects are to remove scientific and technical barriers and to evaluate ATP's review process. In addition, the bill would clarify that the program should operate free of political influence by ensuring that final project decisions are made by career NIST officials, as they have been since the program's inception. However, the Administration's proposal for recoupment of up to 5 times the original amount of funding is not acceptable and is not included. The record on recoupment was made at our hearing in April of this year. It is an approach which the program has tried and failed. More importantly, recoupment discourages companies from participating in the program, imposing overwhelming accounting burdens that companies may be unable to fulfill. In the end, the bill hopes to build on ATP's tremendous successes. Since its inception in 1989 this industry-led, competitive, and cost- shared program has helped the U.S. develop the next generation of breakthrough technologies in advance of its foreign competitors. The Commerce Committee heard testimony from Scott Donnelly of GE. His company, with ATP funding, developed a new method to produce the X-ray panels that are the heart of a new digital mammography system. This system is giving women and their doctors access to better, cheaper digital mammograms. A March 1999 study found that future returns from just three of the completed ATP projects, improving automobile manufacturing processes, reducing the cost of blood and immune cell production, and using a new material for prosthesis devices, would pay for all projects funded to date by the ATP. The bill also provides full funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, Centers which the Administration has proposed to cut. Ironically, these MEP Centers help fulfill one of the top priorities stated in the Administration's budget: ``revitalize the economy and create jobs.'' MEP helps small manufacturers stay competitive and, in 2000, helped these businesses attain $2.3 billion in increased or retained sales, save costs of $480 million, and create or retain more than 25,000 jobs. While the time remaining in this session is short, I want to introduce this NIST Authorization bill to stimulate the productive dialog that we have had with interested members and the Administration on the programs of NIST. I look forward to continuing this work during the 108th Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NIST, Authorization Act. The bill is a routine authorization of appropriations for NIST. It includes some provisions to change the Institute's Advanced Technology Program that were the subject of hearings in the Commerce Committee earlier this year. In addition, the bill includes several technical changes to the NIST Act which the agency has requested. NIST is really a hidden treasure. Twice in the past five years, NIST Scientists have shared in the Physics Nobel Prize. Whether they are investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, making small manufacturers better, sponsoring innovative research, or improving timekeeping, the people of this little-noticed agency continue to do amazing work, and I commend them. Nonetheless, we continue to be embroiled in an annual tug-of-war on funding for the Advanced Technology Program, known as ATP. I am encouraged that Secretary Evans and Deputy Secretary Bodman want to stabilize this program. I am introducing this bill to help them in that cause by including several of the Department's suggestions to improve the ATP. The benefits of the ATP are well-documented. The program has been studied thoroughly from individual case studies, to comprehensive examinations like the 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council. The results are clear. ATP is stimulating collaboration, accelerating the development of high-risk technologies, and paying off for the nation. The Commerce Department has proposed several changes to the ATP. The bill includes provisions to allow universities to lead ATP projects and to have interest in the intellectual property developed under those projects, as well as provisions to further clarify that projects are to remove scientific and technical barriers and to evaluate ATP's review process. In addition, the bill would clarify that the program should operate free of political influence by ensuring that final project decisions are made by career NIST officials, as they have been since the program's inception. However, the Administration's proposal for recoupment of up to 5 times the original amount of funding is not acceptable and is not included. The record on recoupment was made at our hearing in April of this year. It is an approach which the program has tried and failed. More importantly, recoupment discourages companies from participating in the program, imposing overwhelming accounting burdens that companies may be unable to fulfill. In the end, the bill hopes to build on ATP's tremendous successes. Since its inception in 1989 this industry-led, competitive, and cost- shared program has helped the U.S. develop the next generation of breakthrough technologies in advance of its foreign competitors. The Commerce Committee heard testimony from Scott Donnelly of GE. His company, with ATP funding, developed a new method to produce the X-ray panels that are the heart of a new digital mammography system. This system is giving women and their doctors access to better, cheaper digital mammograms. A March 1999 study found that future returns from just three of the completed ATP projects, improving automobile manufacturing processes, reducing the cost of blood and immune cell production, and using a new material for prosthesis devices, would pay for all projects funded to date by the ATP. The bill also provides full funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, Centers which the Administration has proposed to cut. Ironically, these MEP Centers help fulfill one of the top priorities stated in the Administration's budget: ``revitalize the economy and create jobs.'' MEP helps small manufacturers stay competitive and, in 2000, helped these businesses attain $2.3 billion in increased or retained sales, save costs of $480 million, and create or retain more than 25,000 jobs. While the time remaining in this session is short, I want to introduce this NIST Authorization bill to stimulate the productive dialog that we have had with interested members and the Administration on the programs of NIST. I look forward to continuing this work during the 108th Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague and look forward to working with him on this issue during the next Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I hope we can continue our bipartisan work on this important issue early next year to ensure the requirements in the USA Patriot Act will be carried out and that truck drivers are afforded a right to a formal appeals process.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am voting against the legislation before the Senate to institute a new Department of Homeland Security. The President says we need a Department to prevent another September 11, but all this legislation does is produce an elephantine bureaucracy. It does nothing to fund the people on the front lines, who really could fight terrorism; instead funds will be spent in Washington by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. The proposed department excludes the very entities that failed on September 11, but includes all the ones that did not. On September 11 the CIA dropped the ball on intelligence it possessed. So did the FBI. Yet they aren't included. But the Coast Guard did not mess up on September 11th, nor did FEMA, nor did the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service yet they are all included. This is a game of musical chairs. It shuffles and reorganizes 170,000 employees, at 22 different agencies, involving more than 100 bureaus or branches. Yet roughly 110,000 of the personnel scheduled to be moved are already together. Airport, seaport, rail security, and the Coast Guard are already part of the Transportation Department. The legislation is loaded with items purporting to be helpful to our national security, but which may have little effect or would even hinder security. It rolls back the deadline for all airports to check every passenger's luggage, not just the few dozen that may need some additional time. It is crazy to call for the urgency of a new Homeland Security Department, and then say to our highest profile targets, ``take your time.'' It lets pilots carry guns in cockpits, but doesn't require impenetrable cockpit doors, which the Senate agreed was critically needed. What more proof do we need then on Sunday, when the locked door on an El Al airplane helped prevent the hijacker from flying into skyscrapers in Tel Aviv? The bill is full of payoffs and surprises the House leadership included at midnight, right before they left town. Suddenly, we are helping Eli Lilly--why? Suddenly, we are helping American companies that went to Bermuda to avoid taxes. Suddenly, we are absolving private aviation screening companies from liabilities related to their September 11 failures. What does any of that have to do with homeland security? This legislation is supposed to create an independent commission to determine what went wrong on September 11. Incredibly, the very provisions Congress inserted to establish this Commission, freeing the investigation from political hand wringing in the Select Committee on Intelligence, were dropped by House leaders after the elections. The so-called independent commission is now anything but independent. And in nearly 500 pages, the legislation fails to contain a very important item that would be immediately helpful. No where is the National Security Council re-organized. September 11 was an intelligence failure. It was not due to lack of information. As soon as the terrorists struck we knew who they were. Immediately, we rounded up suspects here and moved into Afghanistan. Instead, the problem was a failure on the part of the National Security Council to coordinate, analyze, and deliver the intelligence to the President. The President should be able to get well-analyzed reports of domestic threats on a timely basis. But how can he when his own National Security Council does not even include the Attorney General or the Director of the FBI? If Congress wants to re-organize, we should re- organize the Council to include law enforcement and to make certain intelligence is shared with Customs, INS, the Coast Guard, and the others who need to know. Equally important, intelligence should be shared with and received from state and local officials, but it's not here in this bill. Right to the point: this Senator has not waited for a behemoth bill to take action on homeland security. In the Commerce Committee, we moved several concrete measures to improve our transportation security, insofar as air and sea ports, and trains and buses that criss-cross the country. When Americans fly this holiday, they will see huge improvements in the way security is provided. Congress just passed our legislation to close the gaps that exist at ports along America's coasts, for the first time creating a national system for securing our maritime borders. Is there more this Senator wants this Congress to do for those on the front-lines of homeland security? Absolutely. We should provide for the security of Amtrak's 23 million passengers. We should improve security on buses and freight rail. We should finish the job at our airports and at our seaports. We should prepare our hospitals and other first responders to react to an act of bioterrorism. But how can we when we are going to throw billions to shuffle bureaucrats from one side of Washington to the other. Designing a new logo is not going to help secure our homeland. Nor is renting office space, or buying more desks, and everything else like that. We will be paying more for nonsense redecorating than arming those on the front lines. We have our priorities messed up. A new Department of Homeland Security is unnecessary. And the worse case is for the Department to be set up and our country lulled into thinking we are all safe and secure. A September 11 could still easily happen again.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I want to associate myself with the concerns raised by my colleague. This is a very important issue to both of us. In fact, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion on S. 1750, the Hazmat Endorsements Requirements Act, which would clarify existing law and guide the process for administering the checks. The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 1750 in April without objection. However, the Senate has not taken up this legislation, nor has the Department of Transportation issued a rulemaking to implement Section 1012. Last week, we took an important step forward in addressing Port and Maritime Security when we passed S. 1214. That important measure includes requirements for background records checks for many port workers, and clarifies that if a driver holds a valid CDL with a hazardous materials endorsement obtained after a background records check, the driver would not need to have a duplicative check to access secure port areas. Unfortunately these checks are not being performed and it is unlikely that will change until the DOT issues a rule or the Congress approves legislation to address concerns regarding the hazmat endorsement background records check requirements enacted last year.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I hope we can continue our bipartisan work on this important issue early next year to ensure the requirements in the USA Patriot Act will be carried out and that truck drivers are afforded a right to a formal appeals process.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I want to associate myself with the concerns raised by my colleague. This is a very important issue to both of us. In fact, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion on S. 1750, the Hazmat Endorsements Requirements Act, which would clarify existing law and guide the process for administering the checks. The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 1750 in April without objection. However, the Senate has not taken up this legislation, nor has the Department of Transportation issued a rulemaking to implement Section 1012. Last week, we took an important step forward in addressing Port and Maritime Security when we passed S. 1214. That important measure includes requirements for background records checks for many port workers, and clarifies that if a driver holds a valid CDL with a hazardous materials endorsement obtained after a background records check, the driver would not need to have a duplicative check to access secure port areas. Unfortunately these checks are not being performed and it is unlikely that will change until the DOT issues a rule or the Congress approves legislation to address concerns regarding the hazmat endorsement background records check requirements enacted last year.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my colleague and look forward to working with him on this issue during the next Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am voting against the legislation before the Senate to institute a new Department of Homeland Security. The President says we need a Department to prevent another September 11, but all this legislation does is produce an elephantine bureaucracy. It does nothing to fund the people on the front lines, who really could fight terrorism; instead funds will be spent in Washington by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. The proposed department excludes the very entities that failed on September 11, but includes all the ones that did not. On September 11 the CIA dropped the ball on intelligence it possessed. So did the FBI. Yet they aren't included. But the Coast Guard did not mess up on September 11th, nor did FEMA, nor did the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service yet they are all included. This is a game of musical chairs. It shuffles and reorganizes 170,000 employees, at 22 different agencies, involving more than 100 bureaus or branches. Yet roughly 110,000 of the personnel scheduled to be moved are already together. Airport, seaport, rail security, and the Coast Guard are already part of the Transportation Department. The legislation is loaded with items purporting to be helpful to our national security, but which may have little effect or would even hinder security. It rolls back the deadline for all airports to check every passenger's luggage, not just the few dozen that may need some additional time. It is crazy to call for the urgency of a new Homeland Security Department, and then say to our highest profile targets, ``take your time.'' It lets pilots carry guns in cockpits, but doesn't require impenetrable cockpit doors, which the Senate agreed was critically needed. What more proof do we need then on Sunday, when the locked door on an El Al airplane helped prevent the hijacker from flying into skyscrapers in Tel Aviv? The bill is full of payoffs and surprises the House leadership included at midnight, right before they left town. Suddenly, we are helping Eli Lilly--why? Suddenly, we are helping American companies that went to Bermuda to avoid taxes. Suddenly, we are absolving private aviation screening companies from liabilities related to their September 11 failures. What does any of that have to do with homeland security? This legislation is supposed to create an independent commission to determine what went wrong on September 11. Incredibly, the very provisions Congress inserted to establish this Commission, freeing the investigation from political hand wringing in the Select Committee on Intelligence, were dropped by House leaders after the elections. The so-called independent commission is now anything but independent. And in nearly 500 pages, the legislation fails to contain a very important item that would be immediately helpful. No where is the National Security Council re-organized. September 11 was an intelligence failure. It was not due to lack of information. As soon as the terrorists struck we knew who they were. Immediately, we rounded up suspects here and moved into Afghanistan. Instead, the problem was a failure on the part of the National Security Council to coordinate, analyze, and deliver the intelligence to the President. The President should be able to get well-analyzed reports of domestic threats on a timely basis. But how can he when his own National Security Council does not even include the Attorney General or the Director of the FBI? If Congress wants to re-organize, we should re- organize the Council to include law enforcement and to make certain intelligence is shared with Customs, INS, the Coast Guard, and the others who need to know. Equally important, intelligence should be shared with and received from state and local officials, but it's not here in this bill. Right to the point: this Senator has not waited for a behemoth bill to take action on homeland security. In the Commerce Committee, we moved several concrete measures to improve our transportation security, insofar as air and sea ports, and trains and buses that criss-cross the country. When Americans fly this holiday, they will see huge improvements in the way security is provided. Congress just passed our legislation to close the gaps that exist at ports along America's coasts, for the first time creating a national system for securing our maritime borders. Is there more this Senator wants this Congress to do for those on the front-lines of homeland security? Absolutely. We should provide for the security of Amtrak's 23 million passengers. We should improve security on buses and freight rail. We should finish the job at our airports and at our seaports. We should prepare our hospitals and other first responders to react to an act of bioterrorism. But how can we when we are going to throw billions to shuffle bureaucrats from one side of Washington to the other. Designing a new logo is not going to help secure our homeland. Nor is renting office space, or buying more desks, and everything else like that. We will be paying more for nonsense redecorating than arming those on the front lines. We have our priorities messed up. A new Department of Homeland Security is unnecessary. And the worse case is for the Department to be set up and our country lulled into thinking we are all safe and secure. A September 11 could still easily happen again.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NIST, Authorization Act. The bill is a routine authorization of appropriations for NIST. It includes some provisions to change the Institute's Advanced Technology Program that were the subject of hearings in the Commerce Committee earlier this year. In addition, the bill includes several technical changes to the NIST Act which the agency has requested. NIST is really a hidden treasure. Twice in the past five years, NIST Scientists have shared in the Physics Nobel Prize. Whether they are investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, making small manufacturers better, sponsoring innovative research, or improving timekeeping, the people of this little-noticed agency continue to do amazing work, and I commend them. Nonetheless, we continue to be embroiled in an annual tug-of-war on funding for the Advanced Technology Program, known as ATP. I am encouraged that Secretary Evans and Deputy Secretary Bodman want to stabilize this program. I am introducing this bill to help them in that cause by including several of the Department's suggestions to improve the ATP. The benefits of the ATP are well-documented. The program has been studied thoroughly from individual case studies, to comprehensive examinations like the 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council. The results are clear. ATP is stimulating collaboration, accelerating the development of high-risk technologies, and paying off for the nation. The Commerce Department has proposed several changes to the ATP. The bill includes provisions to allow universities to lead ATP projects and to have interest in the intellectual property developed under those projects, as well as provisions to further clarify that projects are to remove scientific and technical barriers and to evaluate ATP's review process. In addition, the bill would clarify that the program should operate free of political influence by ensuring that final project decisions are made by career NIST officials, as they have been since the program's inception. However, the Administration's proposal for recoupment of up to 5 times the original amount of funding is not acceptable and is not included. The record on recoupment was made at our hearing in April of this year. It is an approach which the program has tried and failed. More importantly, recoupment discourages companies from participating in the program, imposing overwhelming accounting burdens that companies may be unable to fulfill. In the end, the bill hopes to build on ATP's tremendous successes. Since its inception in 1989 this industry-led, competitive, and cost- shared program has helped the U.S. develop the next generation of breakthrough technologies in advance of its foreign competitors. The Commerce Committee heard testimony from Scott Donnelly of GE. His company, with ATP funding, developed a new method to produce the X-ray panels that are the heart of a new digital mammography system. This system is giving women and their doctors access to better, cheaper digital mammograms. A March 1999 study found that future returns from just three of the completed ATP projects, improving automobile manufacturing processes, reducing the cost of blood and immune cell production, and using a new material for prosthesis devices, would pay for all projects funded to date by the ATP. The bill also provides full funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, Centers which the Administration has proposed to cut. Ironically, these MEP Centers help fulfill one of the top priorities stated in the Administration's budget: ``revitalize the economy and create jobs.'' MEP helps small manufacturers stay competitive and, in 2000, helped these businesses attain $2.3 billion in increased or retained sales, save costs of $480 million, and create or retain more than 25,000 jobs. While the time remaining in this session is short, I want to introduce this NIST Authorization bill to stimulate the productive dialog that we have had with interested members and the Administration on the programs of NIST. I look forward to continuing this work during the 108th Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NIST, Authorization Act. The bill is a routine authorization of appropriations for NIST. It includes some provisions to change the Institute's Advanced Technology Program that were the subject of hearings in the Commerce Committee earlier this year. In addition, the bill includes several technical changes to the NIST Act which the agency has requested. NIST is really a hidden treasure. Twice in the past five years, NIST Scientists have shared in the Physics Nobel Prize. Whether they are investigating the collapse of the World Trade Center, making small manufacturers better, sponsoring innovative research, or improving timekeeping, the people of this little-noticed agency continue to do amazing work, and I commend them. Nonetheless, we continue to be embroiled in an annual tug-of-war on funding for the Advanced Technology Program, known as ATP. I am encouraged that Secretary Evans and Deputy Secretary Bodman want to stabilize this program. I am introducing this bill to help them in that cause by including several of the Department's suggestions to improve the ATP. The benefits of the ATP are well-documented. The program has been studied thoroughly from individual case studies, to comprehensive examinations like the 2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council. The results are clear. ATP is stimulating collaboration, accelerating the development of high-risk technologies, and paying off for the nation. The Commerce Department has proposed several changes to the ATP. The bill includes provisions to allow universities to lead ATP projects and to have interest in the intellectual property developed under those projects, as well as provisions to further clarify that projects are to remove scientific and technical barriers and to evaluate ATP's review process. In addition, the bill would clarify that the program should operate free of political influence by ensuring that final project decisions are made by career NIST officials, as they have been since the program's inception. However, the Administration's proposal for recoupment of up to 5 times the original amount of funding is not acceptable and is not included. The record on recoupment was made at our hearing in April of this year. It is an approach which the program has tried and failed. More importantly, recoupment discourages companies from participating in the program, imposing overwhelming accounting burdens that companies may be unable to fulfill. In the end, the bill hopes to build on ATP's tremendous successes. Since its inception in 1989 this industry-led, competitive, and cost- shared program has helped the U.S. develop the next generation of breakthrough technologies in advance of its foreign competitors. The Commerce Committee heard testimony from Scott Donnelly of GE. His company, with ATP funding, developed a new method to produce the X-ray panels that are the heart of a new digital mammography system. This system is giving women and their doctors access to better, cheaper digital mammograms. A March 1999 study found that future returns from just three of the completed ATP projects, improving automobile manufacturing processes, reducing the cost of blood and immune cell production, and using a new material for prosthesis devices, would pay for all projects funded to date by the ATP. The bill also provides full funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, Centers which the Administration has proposed to cut. Ironically, these MEP Centers help fulfill one of the top priorities stated in the Administration's budget: ``revitalize the economy and create jobs.'' MEP helps small manufacturers stay competitive and, in 2000, helped these businesses attain $2.3 billion in increased or retained sales, save costs of $480 million, and create or retain more than 25,000 jobs. While the time remaining in this session is short, I want to introduce this NIST Authorization bill to stimulate the productive dialog that we have had with interested members and the Administration on the programs of NIST. I look forward to continuing this work during the 108th Congress.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in South Carolina, Senator Thurmond and I have a long tradition of working cooperatively to nominate judges. Senator Thurmond has made good choices in the past, and he has done so again, with Judge Dennis Shedd, for elevation to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Shedd is familiar to many Members, having staffed the Judiciary Committee for several years, and of course serving as chief counsel and administrative assistant to Senator Thurmond himself. He is a very smart and capable man. For more than a decade, he has been a judge on the United States District Court for South Carolina, based in Columbia. He has a reputation as a hard worker on the bench, as a straight-shooter, and one who is up-to-date on the laws. By special designation, he has sat on the Fourth Court on several occasions. No judge now sitting on the Fourth Circuit has as much Federal trial experience. On the bench, he has handled 5,000 cases, and he has been reversed less than one percent in that entire time, an outstanding record of sound judgment. I can say he has the support of a wide array of lawyers in South Carolina, and has received a well qualified rating by the American Bar Association. I have a letter from Joseph Anderson, chief United States District Judge, who writes: ``I can say without hesitation that Judge Shedd has a reputation for fairness, both in his community and on our court. As Chief Judge, I have received no complaints about his courtroom demeanor, his decisions, or his procedures. It is my considered opinion that all people who appear in his court receive a fair hearing, regardless of the type of cases involved, or the status of the parties in the case. And here is a letter from nine faculty members of the University of South Carolina School of Law, from which Judge Shedd graduated. After analyzing several of his cases they conclude: ``Judge Shedd's record on the Federal bench demonstrates that he is fair and impartial in all matters that come before him, including to plaintiffs in employment discrimination and civil rights cases. . . . In our view he will make an excellent addition to the Fourth Circuit.'' Let me acknowledge that the NAACP, and some others, have concerns with him. But I have looked into those situations, and I find them wanting with respect to specific inappropriate actions by Judge Shedd. We in the law know that you never have a character witness come up and tell what he knows of his own association, but rather you bring witnesses who give testimony to his reputation in the particular community. In that regard, having checked it out, Judge Shedd is my kind of judge. He is hard, he is tough, but he is hard and he is tough on both sides. We who have practiced law before the courts, and know the score, and don't play games appreciate a judge who is not going to allow any games to be played on you. I have said often that as much as we need a balanced budget, we need some balanced Senators, and some balanced judges. I hope we can garner bipartisan support, and to see that this Judge is confirmed. I ask unanimous consent to print the letters in the Record.