Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. When does the time terminate? Right just before 5?

Mr. HOLLINGS. This decision is dated November 22, 1995. You don't have to read the entire decision. It is a very interesting thing, because back in 1991: . . . UAW amended its petition to exclude ``ramp agents, ramp agent/feeders, handlers, senior handlers, heavyweight handlers, senior heavyweight handlers, checker sorters, senior checker/sorters, shuttle drivers, shuttle driver/ handlers, office clerical employees, engineers, guards and supervisors as defined under the act. So it was not any question about who all was to be covered because they had a chance to amend it. This is 5 years ago when this started. But let me read a couple of other points. This is the National Mediation Board talking. It was a unanimous decision, never appealed and at the NLRB since last November. And in 50 years with 100 cases under the Railway Labor Act, the NLRB has yet to reverse it. And if he can show me--I was asking for the Senator or a House Member--that actually said, let's knock this express company reference out, I would jump off the Capitol dome. He can't find it. It was an innocent mistake. It was after this finding of November 22, 1995, done in December 1995. So it was after the rules of the road that are now trying to be changed, and that is why we are trying to correct. That has been the most difficult thing. The Members really have not kept up with this at all. But the NLRB requested the National Mediation Board's opinion. This is the customary process. I am learning a little bit of labor law. The NLRB initially requested the National Mediation Board's opinion as to whether FedEx is subject to the RLA on July 1, 1992. They held it up. However, on that date, the NLRB granted the UAW's request to reopen the record and to file with the NLRB. While we hear that the poor workers have been trying to get their day in court, their lawyer is up there saying, ``Wait a minute. Hold it up. Return it to the NLRB.'' The NLRB renewed its request on July 17, 1995--3 years. I said, ``How in the world do you hold things up over there in 3 years?'' They said, ``I will tell you what happened, Senator. They have a wild one over there in this fellow Gould who is the chairman.'' And he was trying his dead level best to change the process of taking those under the Railway Labor Act to be determined by the National Mediation Board and have it determined by the National Labor Relations Board itself. He finally got outvoted. He tried for 3 years. He tried for whatever time he was there. But that was the issue. I couldn't understand why they would hold it up, and why we have the Senator from Massachusetts crying about the poor workers are not having any of their rights, and they are trying to play by the rules. Come on. Here you go. Let me read it to you. The NLRB renewed its request on July 17, 1995. The National Mediation Board received the record on July 31, 1995. The National Mediation Board received additional evidence and argument from FedEx and the UAW on August 17, 1995, and September 5, 1995. This is the full unanimous decision of the National Mediation Board-- November 22, 1995, for those who are over there struggling to get their day in court. Come on. They had 5 years to go after it. They can start again. I think it ought to be made clear because I want to read some of this to make sure that they all understand that we are not coming in here pulling the rug out from under employees. The Senator from Massachusetts says we are ``pulling the rug out''--after 5 years with their lawyer and everything else of that kind. Everyone should understand that labor is very, very virile and strong under the Railway Labor Act. In fact, 65 percent to 70 percent of employees under the Railway Labor Act are organized, whereas in the private sector under the NLRB, the National Labor Relations Board, and the National Labor Relations Act, only 11 percent. So this isn't trying to get a protective situation. We are not ``pulling the legislative rug out''. Let me just read a couple of parts in the conclusion part because it says: The limit on section 181's coverage is that the carriers must have continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition and employees' service, the carriers' tractor-trailer drivers, operations agents, and other employees sought by the UAW employed by Federal Express directly. As the record amply demonstrates, these employees, as part of the Federal Express delivery system, are supervised by Federal Express employees. The Board need not look further to find that all of Federal Express employees are subject to the Railway Labor Act. The contention of the Senator from Massachusetts is that we have to get the language out of this bill because we in conference tried to change the rules of the road; that we tried to pull the rug out so that they wouldn't be covered by the Railway Labor Act. The truth of the matter is, the very case he refers to in Philadelphia after 5 years and a unanimous opinion found just what I have read. We are trying to clear up the inconsistency of the dropping of the designation, which is appropriate and should be done. They know it. Let me read further. In the Board's judgment, the analysis of the jurisdictional question should end here. However, I want to read a further paragraph. The UAW argues that the employees it seeks to represent are not integrally related to Federal Express's air carrier functions and, therefore, are not subject to the Railway Labor Act. Going further, answering that argument on the next page: Even if the Board were to assume arguendo that the integrally related test applies to the facts in this case, the Board would hold in concurrence with the recent decision in Federal Express Corporation v. California PUC . . . the trucking operations of Federal Express are integral to its operations as an air carrier. Employees working in the other positions sought by the UAW perform functions equally crucial to Federal Express's mission as an integrated air express delivery service. Finally. . . . the Board is of the opinion that Federal Express Corporation and all of its employees sought by UAW's petition are subject to the Railway Labor Act. This finding may be cited as Federal Express Corporation, 23 NMB 32 (1995). The documents forwarded with your letter will be returned separately. By direction of the National Mediation Board, Stephen E. Crable, Chief of Staff; Rush O'Keefe, Esq.; Paul Jones, Esq.; William Josem, Esq.; Arthur Luby, Esq. I have been asking for a Senator or a House Member who said that we shouldn't make this change, the mistake that was made. They can't find one. I will ask. Give me that UAW lawyer that has made the motion in the last 11 months before the National Labor Relations Board. The gentleman says here, ``This is a matter that is currently in litigation.'' False--threw it back over there to the NLRB, and they are sitting on it like they sat on it for 3 years after UAW brought it. There is nothing you can do about it. You have the fellow Gould over there. He will squat. I can't get him up off his ``whatever.'' But I can tell you now. It is not in any litigation at all. It is unanimously determined on the merits, after 5 years and 11 months later, with no motion, no appearance, no nothing--just sitting on it over there. This is a matter that is currently in litigation even while we are here today. It is like Edward R. Morrow down in the South Pacific or something in World War II. The Senator from Massachusetts says: We ought to let the litigation move forward, but the action that is taken on the FAA bill has preempted effectively the litigation which is under consideration even as we meet here today. Come on. Come on. Wait a minute. There ought to be some test of the truth in the facts here. When the people who wrote the provision, trying to do the honest thing, get accused of pulling rugs out and jamming, I will take that test. I will ask the colleagues to study these facts and to see whether the Senator from Massachusetts is jamming it or the Senator from South Carolina is jamming it and then let them make their vote. It is crystal clear what is going on here. It is crystal clear. Everybody wanted to correct it. But labor told us, they said, ``You are not going to do it. We are going to filibuster. We are going to veto it at the White House.'' I did remember that the Vice President was from Tennessee. I said, ``I don't think that that is going to happen. No.'' And I said, ``I don't think that they are going to filibuster.'' I think we can get 60 votes for the truth and facts. Now we hear about the NLRB, referring to all of these cases like you cannot get a case up there. Hundreds and hundreds of cases here have been covered by the Railway Labor Act, and the technical correction does not change that status. It changes future proceedings, not the one the Senator is talking about that they can make another argument. They can make these arguments. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record this reference to all these cases.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has just spewed out such a bunch of nonsense that it is hard to know where to begin. One is with respect to Federal Express. Like the Senator from Arizona, I am learning about Federal Express. I refer, Mr. President, to ``The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America,'' by Robert Levrig and Milton Moskowitz, of last year. On page 121: The Federal Express invented overnight parcel delivery. U.S. employees: 77,700. It is now over 105,000 domestic, and a total of 125,000, growing at 15 percent per year. But this particular edition has the top-top rating of five stars, and really about the highest rating is four stars. Thumbing through this when I was given it, I could not find any other company with the five stars. Let me show you immediately under that particular provision. On pay and benefits, Federal Express is rated four stars; under opportunities, four stars; under job security, five stars; in pride in work and company, four stars; openness and fairness, five stars; camaraderie and friendliness, four stars. The biggest plus, ``you probably won't get zapped.'' Biggest minus, ``you may not be an overnight success.'' Now, since the distinguished Senator has raised the point that the Senator from South Carolina is zapping the employees, I thought I would have to read that. At least Federal Express hasn't raised that point, or zapped anyone, according to that best-of-the-best edition. So I more or less have to clear the record to defend my record, because we are not about zapping employees. We are not about end-running. We are not about changing the rules in the middle of the game. The truth is, Mr. President, that if we had known last December 22 that the little phrase ``express company'' was being dropped from the ICC Termination Act, and they would have said, ``Senator, we are going to have to drop this provision,'' I would have said, ``Wait a minute,'' if I would have known it, and I would have made that exact charge: You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Why do I say that? Because those same employees he talks about over in Philadelphia have had 5 years with their lawyer, and unlike what the Senator from Massachusetts has said about the board--I will read his statement from the Congressional Record. I refer to yesterday's Record at page S11854: Federal Express challenged the petition, arguing that the entire company, including its truck drivers, is covered by the Railway Labor Act, not the National Labor Relations Act, and that therefore the bargaining unit for its truck drivers must be nationwide. The board has not yet decided the issue. Absolutely false. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record excerpts of the decision of the board.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President. I do not know where to come in. I know we finally have beaten them when they start debating the minimum wage bill, no pay increase, anti-worker, Davis-Bacon, scholarships for students. It reminds me during the war boarding ships in the Navy, they said, ``When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.'' And so we now have to come to the floor of the Senate and talk about everything else but what is really at hand. My distinguished colleague from Massachusetts thinks when he repeats something or says something, somehow that makes it true. He continually comes again and again and he says, well, the Senator from South Carolina cannot show that Federal Express is an express company under the Railway Labor Act. We filled the record. We will have go back to it again and again and again. Since commencing operations 23 years ago, Federal Express and its employees consistently have been determined by the Federal courts, the National Mediation Board, and the National Labor Relations Board to be subject to the RLA. See Chicago Truck Driver, Helpers, Warehouse Workers Union v. National Mediation Board, 1982; Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse workers v. NLRB in 1979; Adams v. Federal Express Corporation back in 1977; Federal Express Corporation, 22 N.M.B. 57 (1995); Federal Express Corporation, 22 N.M.B. 157, 1995; Federal Express Corporation, 20 N.M.B. 666 in 1993; Federal Express Corporation, 20 N.M.B. 486; Federal Express, 20 N.M.B. 404; Federal Express, 20 N.M.B. 394 in 1993; Federal Express, 20 N.M.B. 360 in 1993; Federal Express, 20 N.M.B. 7, 1992; Federal Express, 20 N.M.B. 91, 1992; Federal Express Corporation, 17 N.M.B. 24, 1989; Federal Express, 17 N.M.B. 5, 1989; Federal Express Corporation and Flying Tiger Line, 16 N.M.B. 433 in 1989; Federal Express Corporation, 6 N.M.B. 442, in 1978; Federal Express, Case No. 22-RC in 1974; Federal Express, NLRB case in 1985; Federal Express, NLRB case No. 1-CA 25084 in 1987; Federal Express, NLRB case in 1982; Federal Express NLRB case in 1982; another one, again, in 1977; 1991. The National Mediation Board recently ruled--and this is a 1995 case--on Federal Express' Railway Labor Act status by stating unequivocally that ``Federal Express and all of its employees are subject to the Railway Labor Act.'' Federal Express Corporation, 23 N.M.B. 32 (1995). I do not know how you make it more clear than that. You have that decision that said, in 1993, and I read, ``Federal Express Corporation has been found to be a common carrier as defined by 45 U.S.C. 151.'' Then I look at 45 U.S.C. 151, 1st, ``The term `carrier' includes any express company.'' You read it to them; they don't want to listen. They just act like there is nobody else, they are here looking out for the workers, trying to make it an emotional thing, who is for the workers. I was around here for the workers when some of these were voting for NAFTA. We lost 400,000 jobs; the Mexicans lost 1 million jobs. We went from a $5 billion balance in trade, a surplus, to over an $18 billion deficit. I lost 10,000. I don't know how many this year. I know more than 10,000 by the middle of the summer. I lost 10,000 jobs down there. GATT--I voted against GATT. I had to hold up the Senate and everything else of that kind, trying to make sense so we would not repeal 301. They kept on saying it was not repealed. Now they understand. The Japanese laugh at them. They say, ``Let's go to the World Trade Organization, WTO.'' Find out what you get out of that group. So, do not run around saying, ``I am looking out for workers and helping workers, and you are antiworker.''

Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, Mr. President, let me take the full responsibility because there is no trickery in this whatever. It was openly discussed. My colleagues on the House side as well on this side, all agree that it was an innocent mistake. I do not think you could have Members supporting our position against the powerful Senator from Massachusetts and the powerful labor movement which has made this issue if it were not the case. That is why we included it at my behest, because I wanted to make sure just exactly, in the expression of the Senator from Massachusetts, we were not going to change the rules of the road in the middle of the game. I think that game in Philadelphia is over. But if he thinks it is continuing, then it is in the middle of the game, because this was done in the ICC Termination Act of December 15 after the rule of the road on November 22, 1995. I am glad the distinguished Senator from Arizona referred to these employees. That saves me time. It saves the Members some time. We could go through the history of this particular company and labor relations and various talking points, and you could be more than persuaded now as I have been because I did not think we were going to have this great rhubarb come up. But ever since they were organized, back in 1983, I guess it was--no, 1973, because here is a 1979 decision--Federal Express has been an express carrier, first under the decision back in 1979. In 1936 the Railway Labor Act was amended to include air carriers, which very few people realize had included air carriers, including the one who suggested that we drop the language about ``express.'' Without reading that decision, we move to the 1993 decision of the National Mediation Board and on down the list of the various decisions from time to time. We find out there has been a total consistency for a company that is extremely well operated, is extremely patriotic, it takes care of its employees. I have been through its facilities. When I went up to Alaska many years ago, we got there early and somebody said you ought to go over here and watch that operation they have over at Anchorage while we wait for our ride, which I did. I never realized the technological advance that had been made by this old Marine--or young Marine, as I look upon him, Fred Smith. Before they take off in Japan, they have already computerized information and forwarded it to Anchorage. At Anchorage they have various ways for the State Department, Interior Department, Wildlife Service, textiles--Customs, and they have all those things. They know the packages. They know where new shipments are coming through, where there may be some textile fraud, where there may be some drugs; issues involving the Justice Department, the DEA. As everything is unloaded in a matter of a couple of hours there, this mammoth plane, it goes into all those sockets, runs down these wheels, all those people are at their stations and this is down into the inner part of America. All I could say to myself, understanding this particular point being raised, that, if you had me running around the countryside trying to argue a different union here and another union over here, with certain little organizers here--I want to emphasize this--that experience, because the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts says they are primarily the little towns. This crowd, UAW, is well represented. They know how to organize folks. They spent 5 years on this Philadelphia case that has long since been decided unanimously against them. Now comes, the Senator from Massachusetts depicting: It is an ongoing litigation matter, they have not had their chance, they are playing by the rules and Hollings is pulling the rug out from under them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would not engage in such conduct. I take offense even having me referred to in that way. I do not have to get into some company over there in Tennessee. But I certainly do not have to stand by and, just because they have a powerful Senator and a powerful labor movement, see a good crowd get rolled. I am not going to be rolled. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Now, Mr. President, there was reference made to the CRS. I am just amazed. I thought they always had a pretty good record. They ought to give the fellow who works over there for the Congressional Research Service weekend leave. And the reason I say that, they have a guy named Vince Treacy, legislative attorney, and he was asked on September 27, just a few days ago, to give an opinion with respect to the coverage, the Railway Labor Act coverage of Federal Express as an express company. And he comes up totally in contradiction to all the laws and all the decisions, but more particularly he knows the request is made because we were trying to determine the intent of Congress: Was it as described by the Senator from Massachusetts, or an innocent mistake by my description? Everybody agreed that there was a mistake made. We did not even know it was in there. And please, my gracious, instead of coming with the language itself in the act, he runs all around his elbow and refuses to put this in his three-page decision. I read from the conference report of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 by Mr. Shuster on December 15, 1995. ``The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of the employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act.'' The distinguished chairman on the House side, Mr. Shuster, stated in the Chamber when this was debated a couple of days ago, that that was put in at the request of labor. We will show it to you in the Record. ``The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act.'' Now we see who comes in in the middle of the game trying to change the rules of the road. We see now who is trying to pull rugs out from under people. And they are using every gimmick in the book. This fellow will be looking for a job if I have anything to do with it, I can tell you that, because I have an analysis here going down each one of the points in the document. I did not want to take the time of the distinguished Senator from Arizona, but, for example, Mr. Treacy says: ``If, at some future date, the NMB ruled that some Federal Express employees were employed in activities that were not integrally related to its operation as an air carrier, then those employees would count under the coverage of the NLRA as a matter of law.'' False. False. They raised precisely that point in the case we are talking about, and we have the National Mediation Board and its decision. Heavens above. We could not be more on target. They never called us or asked us about the history of this particular thing. From Treacy's legal opinion they are running around now to give some kind of color, or credibility to their position: `Moreover, it appears unlikely that Federal Express would constitute an express company subject to title 49, as that term is used in the proposed amendment.'' Where did you get that? He says later on here it could go either way. No one, including the author of this memo, disputes the fact that the REA was an express company. No one disputes that Federal Express was acquired and operated under certificates from REA. As the Interstate Commerce Commission stated in its decision transferring the certificates, and I quote, ``The evidence establishes a public demand or need for the proposed continuation of express service as previously authorized under the acquired REA certificates.'' That is the ICC decision No. 66562. Then he states in here: ``The deletion of the term `express company' from section 1 of the RLA does not appear to have been inadvertent or mistaken.'' That is an astonishing conclusion, Mr. President, because it ignores the ICC Termination Act itself, the very sentence I read. The change to the RLA was through a conforming amendment to the ICC Termination Act which included the provision, and I quote, ``The enactment of the ICC Termination Act shall neither expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers under the Railway Labor Act.'' I could read on and on. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this review of the CRS paper that was gotten up quickly and certainly very, very, at best, carelessly, if not intentionally, just 4 or 5 days ago for this case, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Marian McPartland's Piano Jazz, produced by the South Carolina Educational Radio Network. This Peabody Award-winning show has earned recognition for its educational value and importance in promoting and preserving a distinctly American art form--jazz. Piano Jazz is National Public Radio's [NPR] longest running music series and airs on over 250 NPR member stations nationwide. The series was conceived in 1979 by the South Carolina Educational Radio Network. South Carolina Educational Radio took a considerable risk by launching one of the first station-based, locally produced public radio programs to air across America. The risk paid off. Serving South Carolinians for 17 years, the program is a showcase for many of jazz's greatest performances and artists, including Bobby Short, Mary Lou Williams, Dizzy Gillespie and Wynton Marsalis, and has helped launch the careers of some lesser known musicians as well. The programs are hosted by Marian McPartland who blends informal but information packed conversation with improvisational performances. McPartland has been honored by special performances of Piano Jazz at the Lincoln Center's Avery Fisher Hall. In 1986, she also was inducted into the International Association of Jazz Educators Hall of Fame. The program has been recognized with many major awards for broadcasting excellence, including the Peabody, Gabriel, Armstrong, Ohio State and several New York International Radio Festival awards. In fact, the show's recordings are so valuable that both the Library of Congress and the Rogers & Hammerstein Archive of Recorded Sound of the New York Public Library at Lincoln Center are preserving complete collections of the series. I hope this innovative and award-winning show is able to continue serving its broad and varied audience which includes older, established jazz aficionados, as well as listeners 25 years old and under. From senior citizens to seniors in high school, this program provides the best of South Carolina Educational Radio network. Piano Jazz has been such a success because of the public's longstanding support. I hope the public continues in this support so the show remains strong and prosperous. In recognition of Piano Jazz, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Marian McPartland, Henry Cauthen, president and founder of the South Carolina Educational Radio Network, and Shari Hutchison, the program's producer, for this tremendous and valuable cultural jewel.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, South Carolina has been dealt a double blow by the retirement of two leaders who have dedicated their professional lives to the public good. Drs. John and Winona Vernberg have been the University of South Carolina's power couple in the areas of public health, science, and the environment. This beautiful couple has been together for nearly 50 years and has been serving the public just as long. They met in the Navy Hospital Corps at the end of World War II, and embarked on stellar careers in academia afterwards at Duke University and then at the University of South Carolina. John became a Guggenheim Fellow, both won Fulbright- Hayes Fellows, both won the Russell Award for Research in Science and Engineering, both received the William S. Proctor Prize for Scientific Achievement, and Winona was named Woman of the Year in 1980 by the University of South Carolina. While their academic work has been top notch, they have not confined their activities to the classroom or laboratory. Winona became dean of the School of Public Health at USC in 1978, and within a year it was accredited. She has made that school an active, leading institution. It has 10 times the staff and 30 times as many students as when she took over. It has taken on the environmental health questions of our times in an interdisciplinary way and with an eye to the future. More recently, the university has recognized her management skills and longstanding contributions to the institution by naming her acting provost. While Winona has been dean of the School of Public Health, John has been dean of the School of the Environment and head of the Baruch Institute at the University. We in South Carolina have a treasure in the coastal ecosystem, and John and Winona have worked in concert to understand it, to teach others, and to protect it. Diverse research within the Baruch Institute's 17,000-acre coastal preserve has ranged from studies of ocean tides, to tracking sea turtle nesting sites, to collecting data on the effects of Hurricane Hugo on the ecosystem. For John's part in these and other efforts, he has been named South Carolina Conservationist of the Year by South Carolina Wildlife and was honored with the Waddell Lifetime Achievement Award by Friends of the Coast. John and Winona often publish joint research projects, and Winona's environmental leadership was recognized through the Water Conservationist of the Year award by the South Carolina Wildlife Federation. Mr. President, the Vernbergs are a couple we will continue to admire and cherish in South Carolina, and we will watch for their continued accomplishments as professors emeritus at the university. The institutions they have led and built up will continue to be a force for the good in our State and the Nation. I commend their work to my colleagues interested in public health and the environment, and wish the Vernberg family my best in the years ahead.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. section 2601 within title III, the economic growth and regulatory paperwork reduction act

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I wish to engage the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Senator Specter, in a colloquy regarding hemochromatosis. Hemochromatosis, or Iron Overload Disease, is an illness in which too much iron is stored in the blood. It leads to massive organ failure if it is not caught early, but this tragic outcome may be averted by regularly giving blood. Already, the Centers for Disease Control has been working to establish guidelines for physicians on diagnosing this disease and on its simple treatment, but the effort has just begun. In light of the seriousness of the disease and the promise of advancements in its treatment, I hope the Centers for Disease Control will use some of the increased funds in this bill to expand its clinical screening effort and to provide physician education.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree, and thank the Chairman. assistance for victims of hurricane fran

Mr. HOLLINGS. That being the case, I ask the Senator that we deem the Conway project part of the committee's recommendation to the EDA.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to make the Senator from Oregon, the chairman of the committee, aware of a particularly meritorious economic development project from my home State of South Carolina that was not listed in the report. The proposal calls for the renovation of the Main Street theatre in Conway, SC Located in the town's historic downtown district, the theater has the potential to become a center for theatrical and economic activity. I ask the Senator from Oregon if, in his opinion, the Conway project is similar to those listed in our committee report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I note in the report on H.R. 3814 that our committee urged the Economic Development Administration [EDA] to consider applications for grant funding for several worthwhile economic development proposals throughout the country. These were not specifically repeated, however, in this Omnibus Appropriations conference report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I want to thank Senator Murray for reminding us of the importance of combining resources and expertise to address not only methamphetamines, but all narcotics. Senator Murray has been and continues to be a leader in protecting and providing for children, families, and communities. In this bill, we have supported several programs that will assist us in reducing the threats posed by methamphetamines. Specifically, the Drug Enforcement Agency's budget has been increased by 23 percent from last year. The subcommittee looks forward to working with you on the fiscal year 1998 budget.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes, just like the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, ``On balance,'' I am reading: . . . the amendment would appear to confuse rather than clarify the question of Railway Labor Act coverage. On the one hand, it could be argued that the amendment would have no effect. Since neither Federal Express nor any other employer was certified as an express company, subject to title 49, on December 31, 1995, it would follow that no employer could come under the coverage of the proposed amendment. That is an argument, if I were the lawyer for Federal Express, I would be delighted to make. But it shows you how totally confused, not the decision language makes it, but how confused this silly lawyer is over there. Because the ICC does not give an air carrier certification--period. They never gave one to Federal Express. He does not seem to understand that. However, let us go to the basic law. I read: The Railway Labor Act was adopted in 1926 to provide for speedy administrative resolution of labor-management disputes. Section 1 of the RLA describes employers who are subject to the act's regulations: The term ``carrier'' includes any express company, sleeping car company, carrier by railroad subject to the Interstate Commerce Act. So, they found, then, that it was an express carrier, and then in 1936, I am reading also from the finding: The RLA was amended to include air carriers within its regulatory ambit. That is exactly what was reaffirmed here in 1993: Federal Express Corporation has been found to be a common carrier as defined under 45 U.S.C. 151, 1st, and section 1(e)(1) of the Act. Now they have been found both ways. We are not trying to start anything new. For 25, 30 years now this thing has been governing all the cases, bringing it right up to date with respect to that Philadelphia case. There is no question that the National Mediation Board ruled, they ruled with respect to the Railway Labor Act. No reference was relayed on with respect to express language. On November 22--and, procedurally, the NLRB is now making a final ruling there. So this is not any last-minute thing by Mr. Lipinski, saying it was brought up at the last minute. He was prepared. He said, ``This will kill the bill. We will filibuster it,'' and everything else. They have political clout. But I think truth ought to have some political clout. When an honest mistake is made, when no Senator and no Congressman ever even suggested it, now, in the aura of dignity, they say, ``Hearings, hearings, where are the hearings?'' Well, where in the world were the hearings that brought about this deletion that we are trying to correct? That is exactly the point. They did not have hearings. No one understood it. No one proposed it. They made an honest mistake. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Is that all right, 5 minutes also here for the Senator from South Carolina?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I just returned to the city a short time ago, and I am sorry I did not hear the arguments earlier today relative to the FAA authorization bill, nor did I have an opportunity to hear my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts and all of his comments, but I was interested as I walked in to hear him talk about safety. Mr. President, there is a special interest. My colleague was talking about a special interest. There is a special interest that I would like to represent that is best delineated by none other than Mark Twain. Mark Twain said, ``Truth is such a precious thing it should be used very sparingly.'' I represent that special interest of truth on this particular matter, and the facts will sustain it. What happens is we had the ICC Termination Act last year, and in the engrossing, the final drafting up of the document for the President's signature, everyone had gone. There was just staff there checking. Here is a case of the railway express being sent to the lawyer at ICC who said, ``I think you can just leave that out.'' The two little words ``express carrier'' were deleted from the ICC Termination Act. However, there is no question, no one knows of this. I challenge the Senator from Massachusetts who feels so strongly and wants to tell us about cases he can read to the Members, I challenge the Senator to point to me, the Senator point to me, the House Member, who said I wanted to make sure I introduced it, or I brought it up or I discussed it. The reason I emphasize that, because my colleague now talks about jamming, and at the last minute changing and whatever it is. What the Senator from South Carolina wants to do is correct that jamming, if that is what it was. He said it was intended. I have not seen the CRS opinion, but I will get it. That specifically is in contradiction to the Termination Act. I will read from the act of 1995, December 15, just last year, section 10501 ``General Jurisdiction.'' ``The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act.'' So, there is a manifest intent of the Congress. They were not affecting rights that now we are trying to grab and change around. Heavens above, since this institution, Federal Express is an air carrier, has been, to the surprise of many, governed by the Railway Labor Act. In fact, they had a hearing on the day he is talking about over in Philadelphia and they have already ruled. They ruled November 22, 1995, that Federal Express had taken the right position. They did not rely on the express language in the ICC Act, but general law where they find them both as an air carrier and as an express carrier. Everyone that has practiced in this particular field will tell you that is the format of law. Some will contend, what is the matter if the law has not changed? I am trying to change an ambiguity, but more than that, I am trying my best to forestall an assault on the truth and the facts, an assault a bunch of Washington lawyers trying to take advantage of a mistake. Teamsters--I keep hearing in the Halls, ``the Teamsters, the Teamsters, the Teamsters'' have the Senator from Massachusetts all balled up on this and he has to go to bat for them. I have more Teamsters than any kind of Federal Express, just with regular delivery services, I imagine. We have $100 million United Parcel Service facility there and the finest Teamster crowd you have ever seen. We have them at Owens Corning and Mack Truck, and otherwise they have been very supportive of this Senator. They have not told me of a conflict. Another Senator earlier today said just exactly that. The idea that we are coming here at the last minute--what happened after that, the mistake was determined at the end of February or the beginning of March over on the House side. When they learned that, Mr. President, they put in a measure which was blocked. I was asked-- because I am the ranking member of the particular committee with the ICC, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows--``Well, it happened on your watch; do you mind correcting this mistake,'' and I say, ``Not at all.'' I presented it in the Appropriations Committee we had an 11-11 vote, not 10-10. I did not have the proxies or we would have passed it, and the mistake would have been corrected. I did not bother with it. I thought everybody would want to correct an innocent mistake. Come now, Mr. President, with the idea we are trying to jam or hold up safety legislation or the FAA bill, or this is not the place for it, and everything else at the last minute is totally out of the whole cloth. They know differently. They are playing their political strength. I do not know that Federal Express has got much political clout because they are not in South Carolina, and I am not that familiar with them, but I do know that I am not only keenly interested in the truth but I am interested in the operation. I might as well plead guilty on this score because, Mr. President, 10 years ago when I was trying to find hay for the farmers and their herds down in South Carolina I finally located some up in Massachusetts. I called over to the White House, as other Senators were calling, and the White House said, ``Senator, there is no hay for you.'' ``There is no plane for you.'' I said, ``Come on, Senator so and so.'' ``You do not understand, Senator, there is no plane for you.'' I said heavens above, I commented in the cloakroom to a few of my colleagues, that was a heck of a note. I had the hay. I had the cattle that were starving and the farmers that were ready. But the phone rang and there was a fellow named Freddy Smith from Federal Express. He had heard about it and we called, and the next thing you know, he had two planes, Federal Express planes, bring it down one Sunday. I had my commission of labor--the 4-H Club, and all of us there, my wife and myself--and we unloaded the hay all Sunday morning and afternoon. I said, ``I will never forget that fellow.'' So when they told me about the innocent mistake and told me it involved Freddy Smith, I got a very, very strong feeling about this. I am not going to yield to the nonsense and mythical chicanery that is coming about here because they have the political clout. I know he said Republican. No Republican put this in. Democrat Hollings put it in. It was not sneaked in or jammed in. We discussed it several times. It was an appropriate measure for it. In the conference, it was 8 to 2 in the vote to put it in. It passed by a strong vote on the House side. He is trying to make it a partisan thing, which is unfortunate, because right is right and wrong is wrong. Here is the intent put in there, and I am going to get the decisions made because I have been called over now. I didn't think we were going to have to try to cave in for the truth around here. But right this minute as they talk about that case, the mediation board back in November 1995 ruled against them. It isn't trying to try a new practice. If you can get a choke point in one little town and close down a whole thing, you have no express service. And in the interest of express service, that is what is intended by the Congress. We are not trying to get anything new. We are trying to get something contained and maintained in the law that has allowed this particular airline carrier to flourish and grow. There is nothing new about this. We are trying to get it back. As stated in the statute itself--I emphasis by reading it the second time--the enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act. Now, who is trying to sneak in or jam or get something changed? If it is Hollings, he is trying to get it for the truth. He is trying to get back to the facts. He is not trying to get an advantage or disadvantage. He is trying to get back to the intent of Congress. We were there. The Senator from Massachusetts is not on that committee. He is not on that conference. But he talks like now we are jamming it, and everything else of that kind. I am not going to let that rat-a-tat go by on this floor. I have got good time here. I know about the FAA. It is on my committee. I can tell you that right now. The FAA has not only its grants given to the airports, it has its trust funds to operate in a certain measure the airports. It has its trust funds for the safety devices and otherwise in there. So I can tell you, it is not done for one company, and we have to have hearings. Come on, that ought to be ashes in their mouths. Have hearings? When did they have hearings to delete? Who called the hearings? Name the Senator. Name the House Member. Name the committee. They have the unmitigated gall to come here and act like it is orderly procedure; now let us get hearings when they have done the sneaking and they have done the jamming. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent to continue now for 15 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as I noted earlier, committee staff have been working night and day all throughout this month to produce an acceptable omnibus appropriations bill. This has been a real hardship on the staff, but most of all on one of our majority staff on the Commerce, Justice, and State Subcommittee. I say this because Scott Corwin was married in Portland, OR, on August 24. His bride, Kristen, has been out in Oregon since that time, waiting for Congress to conclude the people's business and recess sine die. So, I note that while we are very sorry to hear that Scott Corwin is leaving our CJS Subcommittee and Washington, DC to return and live in Oregon--I'm sure that he is happy and we should be happy for him. Getting right to the point, Scott Corwin is the consummate professional. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College in Senator Gregg's home State, and a graduate of the University of Washington Law School. Even though his roots are in the Northwest, Scott came to Washington, DC to work for Ambassador Bob Strauss' law firm in 1987. Since 1991, he has served our distinguished chairman, Mark O. Hatfield. Since February 1995, Scott has served on our State, Justice, and Commerce Subcommittee. Mr. President, Scott Corwin is the type of dedicated public servant who is so essential to our legislative system. He was assigned a number of appropriation accounts ranging from the U.S. attorneys to the Supreme Court to the Maritime Administration. Scott is a quick study and he dug into the details and specifics of these agency programs and budget requests. He soon mastered the details and became a real appropriator. It became obvious to me and other Members that Scott came to truly care about the agencies that were under his review on behalf of Senator Gregg and the majority. Scott was the first to ferret out soft dollars that are unnecessary. But, he also stood up for programs that deserved our support. He was especially tenacious in his defense of small agency programs, like the Marine Mammal Commission--which the House of Representatives has proposed to cut significantly. In the case of agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we were fortunate to have someone so knowledgeable in earth sciences, fisheries, and oceanic research. Scott Corwin will be missed on both sides of the aisle. It will be hard, if not impossible, to find such a talented individual to take his place. We wish him all the best as he returns to Oregon along with my friend, Senator Mark Hatfield.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, after 24 years of service we are sad to see Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia go. Like his uncle before him, the Honorable Carl Vinson, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and that other eminent Georgian, the Venerable Richard Russell, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he has served with distinction, ensuring our Nation's defense in the shifting sands of the post cold war. Sam Nunn can claim credit for overhauling the much maligned procurement system and for streamlining excess base closings. Additionally, he is responsible for engaging the Department of Defense in the war against drugs. With bipartisan support, he sponsored the comprehensive Omnibus Anti-Drug Substance Abuse Act of 1988 that addresses every facet of the issue: law enforcement, interdiction, treatment, education, and increased cooperation with the international community and our own Internal Revenue Service. The latter signals the agency's return to its former G-man days, targeting organized crime and the narcotics industry. Among our esteemed colleague's forays on crime are his chairmanship and current ranking minority leadership on the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In this venue, Sam probed the fraud and abuse of student financial aid. He likened the Nation's Pell Grant Program to ``an open bank with no security guards and no tellers''. As a result of this and other investigations like it, reform measures were included in reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1992. Other significant achievements belonging to Sam include a 1974 bill which created a mechanism for tracking down runaway parents and holding them financially responsible for their children, definitely a harbinger of family values. He saw the value of providing numerous initiatives for small businesses, including the Small Business Development Center program which provides management and technical assistance to small businesses across the country, and the Preferred Surety Bond Guaranty Program enacted in 1988 and designed to encourage more standard surety companies to participate in the Small Business Administration's Guaranteed Bond Program, strengthening the heart of the American economy, the small businessman. And lest you ever think that Sam forgets the agricultural heritage of Georgia, he cosponsored the Conservation Reserve Program that encourages farmers to retire highly erodible and environmentally sensitive crop land on a 10-year cycle. Georgia, along with the rest of us, can thank him for the Georgia Wilderness Act of 1984 and the creation of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area. Yes, he will be remembered as an outstanding Senator and defence expert in the Georgia tradition, but as you can see, he has been much more. Most of all, he has been someone that the people of Georgia and the United States were proud to have serve them as a Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, truth be told, I don't know which I find more upsetting, the idea that the Government is losing a much-valued judicious voice, or the idea that I might inherit the dubious honor of having ``the slowest drawl in the U.S. Senate.'' Either way, we'll miss Howell Heflin greatly. However, I welcome this opportunity to celebrate the career of a man who has built a grand reputation as both advocate and judge. Today, with every front page screaming about the public's disillusionment with politicians, Howell Heflin stands as a model of integrity and dedication. In this era of increasing partisanship, he is a Senator who would not vote along party lines against his own constituency. In this atmosphere of media scrutiny, he is a judge who could not vote along the lines of popular opinion against his own conscience. He leaves a legacy of what it truly means to be in government: to represent the interests of the voters and to govern according to the law. Whether he was working on court reforms, championing agriculture, advocating a balanced budget, or defending the space program, Howell has spent his 16 years in the Senate working hard for the people who put him there. He has been a tireless representative for the people of Alabama, and a tenacious defender of their interests. He is not a distant politician immersed in Washington business. Howell Heflin's record of public service did not just benefit his home State. With his distinguished service on the Senate Ethics Committee, the country came to know a just, pragmatic, and compassionate judge of character. Though he didn't like to sit in judgment of his peers, he steered the country through some rough and divisive episodes and our Nation became familiar with the man we already knew as the Judge. As you well know, Senator Heflin has a reputation for being an independent thinker, a master storyteller, and a strong proponent of issues he believes in from civil rights to family values. One thing that never fails to amuse me is when critics attempt to malign Howell Heflin, the most scathing thing they can come up with is to call him a fence-straddler or indecisive. This is ironic because it is this quality that has made him such an exemplary Member of the Senate. He listens to all the arguments before making his decision, and when he does, it is fair and just. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out in a letter to George Washington: ``Delay is preferable to error.'' We will miss Senator Heflin and his charming wife Mike, but we couldn't expect to keep them in Washington forever. So I wish for them the best of luck in the future.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as we debate this omnibus appropriations bill, I want to acknowledge the staff that have worked so hard drafting these appropriations bills. They have been working night and day on this compromise bill. In particular, I would like to note Senator Hatfield's deputy staff director for the Appropriations Committee, Mark Van de Water. Many pundits said that this omnibus fiscal year 1997 bill was not possible. They said that the Federal Government would have to operate on a 6-month continuing resolution that uses spending formulas. But, behind the scenes, Senator Hatfield and his staff worked long and hard to develop a basis for compromise. And, for the last few weeks, we all worked around the clock to conclude the negotiations that made this bill possible. The success of this process and the reality of this bill are due, in no small part, to the efforts of our Appropriations Committee's deputy staff director, Mark Van de Water. Mark is a graduate of St. Lawrence University in New York where he studied political science and economics. He has worked on the Hill since 1986. From 1991 through 1994, he served on the committee staff as the minority clerk for the District of Columbia appropriations bill. I came to know him as the man who handled Senator Hatfield's interests in our Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill. Specifically, he ensured that Oregon's interests were protected in such diverse areas as salmon restoration, NOAA's oceanic research, and Federal law enforcement. In January 1995, Mark became our committee's deputy staff director and J. Keith Kennedy's right hand man. Since January 1995, we have been able to count on Mark as a force of moderation and decency on the Committee. He continued to operate in his straight-forward, bipartisan fashion even in the winter and spring of 1995, when our Appropriations Committee did not. In September 1995, he worked with my staff to develop compromises and a Hatfield/Hollings amendment that allowed the Commerce, Justice, and State bill to move forward and kept the bill from being recommitted to the Committee. Mark continued to watch out for programs that were of special interest to Chairman Hatfield, like aid to the poor through the Legal Services Corporation and research of the Pacific Ocean through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Too often we overlook the career professionals who make this institution and this appropriations process work. In Mark Van de Water this institution is lucky to have an individual who carries out his job with the same professionalism and conscientiousness that typifies our chairman, Mark O. Hatfield. I, for one, would like to acknowledge and thank him for his contributions to the Appropriations Committee and the Senate. Section 318--Log Exports

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in supporting the conference report on S. 1004, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996. Congress has not completed action on a Coast Guard authorization bill since 1993. In recent years, the bill has become the hostage of legislative battles on issues that are completely unrelated to the Coast Guard authorization. Today, after many hours of discussion, I am pleased that the conferees finally have reached agreement on wideranging legislation that enjoys widespread support. The conference report authorizes funding of just over $3.7 billion annually for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, provides for end-of-year military strength and training loads and addresses a backlog of Coast Guard-related administrative and policy issues. Among such issues, the bill provides for: personnel administrative reforms requested by the administration, marine safety and waterways management improvements, updated authority for the Coast Guard Auxiliary, regulatory reforms for the U.S. maritime industry, and tougher controls to reduce marine plastic pollution. The conference report recognizes that the Coast Guard has an important job and does it well. Indeed, the widespread support for the Coast Guard budget reflects the breadth and complexity of its missions--from protecting our maritime boundaries and the safety of life at sea to preserving the ocean environment and enforcing maritime laws and treaties. On an average day in 1994, the Coast Guard saved 14 lives, assisted 328 people, responded to 34 oil or hazardous chemical spills, inspected 64 commercial vessels, seized 379 pounds of illegal drugs, serviced 150 aids-to-navigation, and interdicted 174 illegal aliens. Over the years, we have continued to ask the Ocean Guard to do more with less. In typical fashion, the Coast Guard has responded with a streamlining plan that will trim $400 million from the budget by 1998 and allow personnel reductions of 4000 people. As an example of the pragmatic approach the Coast Guard has taken in this plan, we recently welcomed the Coast Guard high endurance cutters, Dallas and Gallatin, to their new homeport at the Charleston Navy Base. By relocating Coast Guard assets from expensive locales like Governors Island to areas where the quality of life is high and the cost of living is reasonable, everyone benefits. The Coast Guard is better able to meet both its budgetary bottom line and its personnel needs. Turning to the conference report, I would like to highlight some key provisions. With respect to the Coast Guard bridge program under the Truman-Hobbs Act, the Federal Government shares with the States the cost of altering publicly owned bridges that obstruct the free movement of marine traffic. The administration requested no funding for this account in fiscal year 1995, initiating a new policy under which the Coast Guard no longer would seek direct funding for alteration of highway bridges. Instead, the administration proposed that the Federal share of such projects be financed from the discretionary bridge funds of the Federal Highway Administration, under the continuing program direction of the Coast Guard. The conference report provides the Secretary of Transportation with the discretionary authority and the flexibility to fund the program from either the Coast Guard bridge account or the discretionary bridge fund of the Federal Highway Administration. I anticipate that the Department of Transportation will use this new authority in the months to come in developing a plan to ensure stable funding for this longstanding and essential part of our national transportation safety program. In addition, individual Truman-Hobbs bridge projects, such as the John F. Limehouse Memorial Bridge in Charleston, SC, are critically important to address local transportation infrastructure needs. Consequently, I would like to thank the Department for working with me to identify $9 million in unused federal highway funds that will be made available to begin construction of the Limehouse Bridge. This bridge project is essential to improve navigation safety and provide for adequate evacuation of the Charleston area in the event of another hurricane or natural disaster. On another matter, the Coast Guard has worked with the maritime industry in recent years to develop a package of amendments to existing marine safety laws that would allow their implementation in a more cost-effective and efficient manner, reduce the regulatory burden on the industry, and provide greater flexibility in making safety decisions. The amendments contained in the conference report before us today specifically would: implement the International Safety Management Code for U.S. vessels engaged in foreign commerce; allow qualified third parties such as the American Bureau of Shipping to conduct vessel safety inspections; allow greater use of foreign manufactured safety equipment; and extend the validity of Coast Guard certificates of inspection from 2 to 5 years, allowing earlier scheduling of annual inspections. The changes will help U.S. flag vessels to become more competitive in international trade and reflect the Coast Guard's commitment to harmonize U.S. regulations with international requirements. In addition, the conference report provides relief to operators of small passenger vessels from the exorbitantly high inspection fees that the Coast Guard was forced to establish in its efforts to achieve deficit reduction mandates. The conference report also includes a provision developed in cooperation with Senator Lautenberg that would amend the act to Prevent Pollution from Ships [APPS] to strengthen requirements that ports maintain reception facilities to offload plastic wastes generated by vessels at sea. The legislation calls for the Secretary to inspect and maintains a list of such facilities and for port operators to post placards encouraging reporting of any inadequacies. The report also amends the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act to: continue the Secretary's biannual reporting to Congress on compliance with APPS; add a requirement to publish an annual list of APPS violators; establish a Marine Debris Coordinating Committee; and continue and expand the Federal public outreach program to include the use of grants. Like most legislation, this conference report reflects a compromise and does not include some provisions which this Senator would have liked to have had enacted. In particular, I was disappointed that we were unable to persuade the House of Representatives to accept the Senate provision on funding for State boating safety programs. The Senate-passed provision would have ensured that States receive a stable source of financial assistance for the development and implementation of a coordinated national recreational boating safety program. This is an issue that should be addressed early in the 105th Congress. Over the past two centuries, the U.S. Coast Guard has built an enduring reputation throughout the world for its maritime safety, environmental protection, humanitarian, and lifesaving efforts. We have all watched the valiant and often heroic work of Coast Guard seamen and officers as they rescue desperate refugees who have taken to the seas in crowded and makeshift boats. Even in the remote regions of the world, the Coast Guard is present, actively engaged in the enforcement of United Nations embargoes against countries like the former Republic of Yugoslavia and Iraq. The men and women of the Coast Guard respond with equal dedication during times of war and peace. I ask my colleagues to recognize this service by joining me in supporting the conference report on S. 1004.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, lost in the rhetorical haze generated by pollster politics is a serious discussion of the principle challenge facing this Nation, that is, how can we arrest the decline in wages and living standards and restore the American Dream. Instead of addressing this fundamental issue, what currently passes for political discourse is a mindless discussion in which each candidate stands up and proudly proclaims that he or she is for the family and he or she is against crime. What neither party wants to address is the immutable connection between two decades of economic stagnation and dislocation, and the breakdown of families and the destruction of communities. In the past decade over 2 million high paying jobs in manufacturing have disappeared. The social fabric of hundreds of communities have been ripped apart. Those who have jobs are working longer and harder for less compensation. Isn't it more than a coincidence that the breakdown in the family and the collapse of our inner cities would coincide with an unprecedented era of economic insecurity? Once the land of opportunity, America now has the worst distribution of income in the industrialized world. Fortunately, the Philadelphia Inquirer has filled this void. In a penetrating 10 part series, the Pulitzer Prize winning team of Donald Barlett and James Steele have put a human face on the devastation wrought by our failed trade policy. From our unwillingness to enforce our trade laws to the sorrid spectacle of former U.S. officials lining up to represent foreign interests, Bartlett and Steele correctly identify the root causes of our economic decline. The strength of Barlett and Steele's piece is epitomized by the vicious attacks that have been leveled at this prize-winning team. Barlett and Steele have drawn fire from the same crowd who have for decades produced the same mindless, conventional wisdom that equates unilateral free trade with economic growth. These are the same people, whose wild assertions about NAFTA and GATT, were utterly false. During the NAFTA debate the purveyors of conventional wisdom anointed Carlos Salinas as the man of the decade, valiantly reforming the political system and transforming Mexico into a first world economy. NAFTA was supposed to usher in a golden era for U.S. exports to Mexico creating thousands of new high wage jobs. Two years later we have recorded $23.2 billion worth of trade deficits with Mexico. The Mexican economy collapsed into a depression and the man of the year, Carlos Salinas, is living in forced exile while the extent of his administration's corruption is documented in the pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. NAFTA was supposed to create a North American Free Trade Block to compete against Europe and Asia. Instead, Asian investment has poured into Mexico. A recent article in the Nikkei Weekly, specifically cites Mexico's low wages and NAFTA's duty-free access as the reason why Asian investors are flocking to Mexico. Mr. President, the same group that attacks Barlett and Steeles' objectivity, never once, during the debate on the GATT, questioned blatantly false assertions made about the efficacy of section 301, or the GATT Rounds' impact on the U.S. economy. While we were assured that the United States maintained its rights to use section 301, Japan's Minister of Trade and Industry boldly proclaimed that, ``the era of bilateralism is over, all disputes will be settled by the WTO.'' In the year since the GATT/WTO has taken effect, our trade deficit has continued to soar at a record pace. Trade has become a net drag on the economy, robbing the United States of close to 1 percent of growth as imports consistently out-pace exports. Most pernicious were the claims made by the members of the Alliance for GATT Now. Claims of export booms that would lead to increases in employment. The reality is that 250 companies are responsible for 85 percent of U.S. exports. These same companies have been among the largest downsizers in the American economy. Pink slips rained down on workers at AT&T, IBM, and General Electric. According to an executive vice president at General Electric, ``We did a lot of violence to the expectations of the American worker.'' How can those who have consistently been wrong about trade now turn around and question Barlett and Steele? Mr. President, this provocative series in the Philadelphia Inquirer has undermined many of the dubious assertions about trade. Assertions that for decades have been unquestionably accepted. I urge my colleagues to read this series, and I hope it will stimulate a much needed debate on the most serious issue facing this Nation.