Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to recognize today a man who has given selflessly to his community and profession, Dr. Joe Carroll Chambers. He will be retiring on October 11, 1996 and we are very sad to see him go. Dr. Chambers is a graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, interned at the Baptist Hospital in Nashville, and completed a masters in public health at the University of North Carolina. He is the recipient of many awards, including the James Hayne Award by the SC Public Health Association for meritorious achievements in public health over an extended period time and the American Lung Association's John Martin Medal for significant contributions. I wish him and his wife, Bettye Ann, the best as they take on the slower pleasures and pace of retirement. I ask to have printed in the Record a synopsis of Dr. Chambers' accomplishments as director of the Charleston County Health Department. The synopsis follows: Joe Carroll Chambers, MD, MPH Dr. Joe Chambers was named Health Director of the Charleston County Health Department in 1977 after having served in the same capacity for Aiken County. Since that time, Charleston has seen improved public health, grown in services, increased activity in preventing potential environmental hazards and, in general, an increased awareness of the need for preventative health measures. The CCHD Public Health Nursing Division is accredited by the National League for Nursing as is the Home Health Services Program. Home Health visits have continued to grow for the past several years as the public has become increasingly aware of this service for those in need. The Women, Infants and Children Food Program serves pregnant, breast feeding, postpartum women, infants and children under five. The Charleston program serves the largest number of patients, who are at nutritional or medical risk, in the state. One of the County Health Clinics recently received the Distinguished Volunteer Award from the Charleston County School District. Environmental Health programs have prevented the spread of communicable disease through control of the environment. Annually, the food protection program inspects over 1,700 food service establishments. Think about this health department that sponsors rabies clinic throughout the county vaccinating 10,000 animals annually, handling more than 4,000 relative activities through its Solid Waste/Litter Control Program and being nationally recognized for its Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. All these have had skillful leadership of fine teams, headed by Dr. Chambers. Certain health conditions serve as a barometer of the health status of the community. In Charleston, as the immunization of children under two continues to improve, the infant mortality rate improves. Because early and continuous prenatal care services have been promoted by Dr. Chambers, results are positive. Dr. Chambers is recognized as an advocate for prevention initiatives that protect and improve the health of our community. The Charleston County Board of Health recognizes and congratulates Dr. Joe Carroll Chambers for his vision, knowledge and leadership as Director of the Charleston County Health Department. Through his tenure, we have witnessed a safer Charleston, a growth in needed health services and an increased awareness of environmental risks. This Tri-County area, Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester Counties, has been fortunate to have enjoyed better community health due to Dr. Chambers' diligence, dedication and foresight. He has given attention to every facet of this area's well being that touches on good health and disease prevention. All of this he has done with skill, grace, kindness and understanding.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this year Gonzaga College High School here in Washington, DC, is observing its 175th anniversary. This weekend, the Gonzaga community will celebrate this occasion with a block party at the school on Sunday, September 29. I submit some additional information about the school and its long history and ask it be printed in the Record. The material follows: D.C.'s Oldest School Marks 175th Anniversary Washington, D.C.--This year Gonzaga College High School located on North Capitol and Eye Street, N.W. is celebrating 175 years of service to the community. The oldest educational institution in the federal city of Washington, Gonzaga through the years has educated the sons of government leaders and the sons of janitors, teaching strong moral values interwoven with its rigorous academic disciplines, and producing graduates which the school fondly calls ``Men for Others.'' Founded by the Society of Jesus in 1821 and originally named the Washington Seminary, Gonzaga grew from a tiny school to a major inner-city presence by the turn of the century. Gonzaga prospered during that period and well into the 1900's, a reflection of the city of Washington at large. So, too, was the school a reflection of the city in the late 1960's when racial tensions began to ignite. Enrollment at the Eye Street, N.W. school began to decline. Immediately after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in April 1968, the community around Gonzaga literally caught fire and the riots destroyed some neighborhoods and made others uninhabitable. This tense period (1968-1973) marked the turning point in the life of Gonzaga. The Jesuit community and its supporters then made the crucial decision to remain on North Capitol Street, rather than close down or flee to the suburbs. This decision to stay and help restore the inner-city, both physically and spiritually, makes possible this 175th anniversary celebration. The arrival of Father Bernard Dooley in 1974 as Gonzaga's new president was the single most significant event in this turnaround. He discovered that the school had no endowment, that its buildings were old and inadequate, and the prospective students were going elsewhere to high school. Father Dooley led the turnaround campaign to a stunning success. During his twenty years at the school (1974-1994) Dooley and his team built new buildings, increased the endowment and revived the spirit of the Gonzaga community. This fall, 820 students will be enrolled at Gonzaga, the largest enrollment in its history and a far cry from the dark days of the early 1970's. During these 175 years, great leaders have visited Gonzaga. President John Quincy Adams put the students through their paces in Latin and Greek at one graduation ceremony, and President Zachary Taylor spoke at another. Much more recently, Mother Theresa of Calcutta reminded the 1988 graduating class of its duty to care for the poorest of the poor. Gonzaga may be best known and best represented by its heroes who are not household names--such as Father Horace McKenna, S.J., Father Raymond Lelii, S.J., Joe Kozik and John Carmody. These men and others like them demonstrated by their example that community service is the primary mission of a Gonzaga man. Father Allen Novotny is the current President of Gonzaga, succeeding Dooley in 1994. A member of the Society of Jesus, Father Novotny holds degrees from Loyola College in Baltimore (MS and MBA), and the Weston School of Theology (M.Div.)

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the International Natural Rubber Agreement [INRA] and urge the Senate to ratify this agreement. This is the third INRA. The first two agreements were ratified by this body by overwhelming margins in 1980 and 1988. The third agreement merits that same level of support. Since entry into force of the first agreement, INRA has effectively met its basic purpose: to encourage cultivation of natural rubber by reducing market volatility and thus ensuring adequate supply. Unless INRA is ratified, we will return to the unstable price situation that characterized the period before the first INRA went into effect. Price volatility discourages investment in natural rubber production, which in turn affects supply. Rubber trees can only be grown in a few areas of the world and production does not begin until at least 5 years after the trees are planted. Therefore, a reduction in planting has a long, adverse effect on supply. As the world's largest consumer of natural rubber, the United States has a particularly strong economic interest in assuring stability and adequate supply for the future. Natural rubber is an essential product for which there is no substitute. Seventy-five percent of the world's rubber production is used in the manufacture of tires. Every tire must contain some amount of natural rubber in order to meet required performance and quality specifications. If U.S. rubber manufacturing plants cannot obtain adequate supplies of natural rubber, jobs will be disrupted and consumers will face increased prices. In South Carolina alone, more than 10,000 workers are employed in the rubber manufacturing industry. The administration has proposed funding INRA by rolling over the existing U.S. share of the buffer stock. I endorse this proposal. A rollover is specifically permitted under the terms of INRA. This was the method used when the second INRA was ratified. Based on historic experience, these funds should be adequate to meet our obligations under the third INRA. And these funds will be returned to the taxpayers when the agreement terminates. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of ratification.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1505, the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996. This legislation reauthorizes the pipeline safety programs that are the responsibility of the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). OPS has a tremendous responsibility in ensuring the safety of the nation's gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. The combined interstate pipeline system has approximately 1.8 million miles of pipeline, consisting of approximately 1.6 million miles of gas pipeline and 155,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipeline. Any map of the nation's pipeline system shows how much our population depends on safe pipelines. The question is not whether pipeline safety programs should be reauthorized. Rather, we must determine the best way to maintain the safety of the interstate pipeline system while allowing the pipeline operators and owners to provide the service so necessary to the nation's well-being. The importance of OPS is not theoretical. Many of us can report on gas line ruptures and spills in our states in the past. For example, there was a gas pipeline rupture in New Jersey two years ago. There was a horrible spill in my home state of South Carolina this summer. Over 1 million gallons was spilled. My staff has spent countless hours in monitoring this disaster. Luckily, the skill and dedication of OPS prevented that spill from becoming a major environmental disaster. The OPS training exercise with the pipeline owner held just prior to the spill contributed to the speed with which the adverse effects of this spill were mitigated--most of the spill was cleaned up and the remainder evaporated. In this regard, I extend my appreciation to OPS for keeping me informed of the spill and the efforts to redress the harm done to the land and water in South Carolina. Of course, I intend to continue monitoring our pipeline situation in South Carolina until I am satisfied that our pipelines are truly safe. This bill provides authorization levels that are consistent with the Administration's budget request for OPS, but unfortunately, the appropriations for OPS that just passed the Congress are about 10 percent below the budget request. Obviously, OPS will be able to do its job better if it does not have to shift resources constantly to cope with funding difficulties. Despite its funding shortfall, however, I have reason to believe that OPS will ensure that our situation in South Carolina is rectified. This legislation was crafted from many discussions between OPS and the pipeline industry. The bill refines the present OPS regulatory program so that OPS's scarce resources are put to the nation's best advantage. This greater ability to target its resources will help OPS to concentrate on the most serious problems, like the one we have faced in South Carolina. The bill also allows OPS and the pipeline industry to cooperate in designing risk management programs which will provide an appropriate level of safety while relieving pipeline facility owners and operators of unnecessary paperwork. In addition, this legislation contemplates a true partnership between the parties by including the states in the regulatory process with OPS and the pipeline industry. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 1505.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1350, legislation to revitalize and stabilize our maritime industry. It is long past time for legislation to stop the flight away from the U.S. flag. The United States has a long and honorable maritime heritage and tradition, but we are facing the prospect that our maritime industry might not be part of our future. The U.S. Government has imposed regulatory demands on the U.S. shipping industry, demands that are similar to those we impose on other industries. These demands reflect our national interest in protecting the safety of our workers and our environment and include tax liabilities, safety regulations, and operating requirements. While our maritime industry carries these regulatory responsibilities, other advanced nations have given special treatment to their maritime industries in efforts to maintain core shipping capacity. But even such special treatment has often been insufficient to help shipping companies to resist the temptation to shift their operations to unregulated, untaxed flags of convenience offered by certain less developed countries. Currently, over two-thirds of the world ocean- going fleet is operated under flags of convenience. The Maritime Security Program is designed to offset the costs of operating under the application of U.S. law, and to stem the flight of U.S. vessels from U.S.-flag to flags of convenience. H.R. 1350 completely overhauls the existing maritime subsidy program, and ultimately will reduce Government expenditures on maritime policies by over one-half. The program will help our vessels compete globally by reducing some of the regulatory burdens that have restricted the commercial operations of U.S.-flag operators. In exchange for receiving payments under this program, U.S.-flag operators will be required to sign agreements to make their vessels and related intermodal assets available to the Department of Defense [DOD] to sustain U.S. defense operations. Additionally, the operation of U.S. vessels generates a surplus of U.S. mariners. U.S. vessels operate 7 days a week, all year round, thus necessitating more than one mariner for each particular position. This surplus of mariners is instrumental in the crewing and operation of our reserve fleet of vessels. In the Persian Gulf war, the ability to crew our reserve fleet was seriously questioned, and the United States was forced to rely on 60- and 70-year-old merchant marine pensioners. Without the Maritime Security Program, we will not be able to crew the reserve fleet. The United States relies on ocean transportation for international trade purposes and almost 99 percent of our international trade arrives on board a ship. Without a U.S.-flag merchant marine, we will be held hostage to the trade policies of foreign nations who would transport our goods abroad. The United States also relies on ocean transportation to protect our national security interests. U.S. shipping companies are required to sustain U.S. troops in foreign conflicts, and U.S. seamen not presently serving aboard ships are capable of being utilized to activate our reserve fleet of vessels in order to transport military equipment and other military surge cargoes. The continued presence of an active maritime industry ensures that the United States will not have to rely on the kindness of other nations to achieve important national economic and national security objectives. The United States is the world's only remaining superpower, but we could be put in the position of sending U.S. troops into war with only the promise that we would supply them, and then only if DOD can charter vessels willing to deliver cargo into the war zone. This position would be simply unacceptable. Ironically, DOD has spent billions of dollars in the construction of surge sealift vessels, and billions of dollars in maintaining a Reserve Fleet of vessels. However, DOD has neglected the most important component in marine transportation: who will navigate those ships and deliver the cargo. The commercial U.S.-flag industry provides a labor pool of experienced personnel capable of contributing to any defense logistical support need. If we do not pass this legislation, DOD will be forced to implement a new, and I will guarantee, costly program to train mariners for use in reserve situations. Attempts to formulate a maritime reform bill over the years have had bipartisan support, and I look forward to continued efforts with my colleagues to revitalize our maritime industry. However, today we should take the necessary steps forward to ensure that the United States continues to have a maritime industrial base--it is simply too important to our national and economic interests to allow to vanish into the mist.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, our Nation's primary law to protect and develop the wealth of fishery resources found off American coasts. Those resources are a valuable national heritage. In 1995, U.S. commercial fishermen landed a record 9.9 billion pounds of fish, producing over $3.7 billion in dockside revenues. By weight of catch, the United States is the fifth largest fishing nation. We are also the world's top seafood exporter, with exports valued at $3.3 billion in 1995. Over the past two decades, the Magnuson Act has guided the development of the U.S. fishing industry, as we successfully Americanized our fisheries. However, in some regions we unfortunately were more successful in promoting fishing than in preserving fish. As the competition among U.S. fishermen grew, the unique and participatory process established by the Magnuson Act began to show a few signs of aging. Three years ago the Commerce Committee began a systematic review of Federal programs and regulations that affect marine fisheries management. Since then we have held over a dozen hearings here in Washington and in fishing communities around the Nation. We have heard from almost 200 witnesses from South Carolina to Maine and from Hawaii to Alaska. The final result of that review is the bill before the Senate today. S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act, represents the efforts of Senators Stevens and Kerry, myself and other Members to address the issues identified. This reauthorization of the Magnuson Act builds upon our past experience to stop overfishing and waste, protect essential marine habitat, and streamline the management process. Turning to the Southeast, where commercial fishermen landed over 275 million pounds of seafood--valued at $238 million--in 1995, fishing plays a vital role in the economies of many coastal communities like Murrells Inlet, Charleston, McClellanville, and Beaufort. In addition, the sportfishing industry is an important part of the regional and local economies. In 1995, an estimated 2.3 million anglers participated in marine recreational fisheries in the south Atlantic region. These fishermen made over 18 million fishing trips, catching more than 65 million fish, including seatrout, catfish, and red drum. The south Atlantic Spanish mackerel fishery, in particular, has been cited as a Magnuson Act success story. Prior to the 1980's, mackerel catches essentially were unregulated, leading to over-harvesting by both commercial fishermen and sport anglers. The South Atlantic Council then stepped in to implement quotas, bag limits, and trip limits and this once-depleted population now seems well on its way to rebuilding. Unfortunately, for every success story like Spanish mackerel or striped bass, we still hear all too many tragedies. In addition, we have seen growing interest in reducing waste and unnecessary bycatch in our fisheries. The United Nations estimates that about 27 million tons of fish each year--about a third of world harvests--are caught and thrown back because they are too small, there is no market, or a quota has been exceeded. South Carolina shrimpers are far too familiar with this issue and have struggled for years to prevent endangered sea turtles from drowning in their nets. The spirit of cooperation and innovation that they have shown in working with State and Federal managers to successfully tackle the sea turtle problem demonstrates an approach which should be effective in dealing with other bycatch problems. Habitat protection also has become a greater concern in recent years as coastal development and marine pollution threaten the environment and subsequently the health of many fish stocks. Half of the world's population now lives within 40 miles of the coastline, and scientists estimate that by the turn of the century, more than three-quarters of Americans will live within 50 miles of the U.S. coastline. Essential fish habitat must be identified and conserved if we are going to maintain healthy fish stocks in the future. Finally, while the growing frustration with large government bureaucracies and overregulation is not confined to marine fisheries, we certainly need to take steps to streamline the process and eliminate unnecessary redtape. The goal of the council process established under the Magnuson Act was to ensure the participation of all those affected by fishery regulations. However, we cannot allow that process to become so cumbersome that it fails to effectively conserve our fisheries resources, and we must have in place reasonable safeguards against conflicts of interest. Those of us who are interested in the protection and responsible use of our marine resources have learned a lot about managing marine fisheries over the past two decades. We recognize that the days of superabundant fish stocks are gone forever, and we are confronting a basic fact of life--there aren't enough fish to go around. We also have seen that rebuilding efforts, like the plan for Spanish mackerel, can be successful. And we now understand the importance of ecological considerations like habitat and bycatch in managing our fisheries. Building on that increased understanding, S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act, extends the authorization of appropriations for the Magnuson Act through fiscal year 1999. The bill also: First, caps fishery harvests at the maximum sustainable levels and requires action to prevent overfishing and rebuild depleted fisheries; second, broadens existing Federal authority to identify and protect essential fish habitat; third, minimizes waste and discards of unusable fish; fourth, streamlines the approval process for fishery management plans and regulations; fifth, tightens financial disclosure and conflict-of- interest requirements for council members; sixth, establishes a moratorium on management plans that allow private ownership of harvest quotas and fees to cover the administrative costs of such a plan; and seventh, reauthorizes other fishery programs and statutes, including the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. Mr. President, S. 39 is the result of extensive bipartisan efforts by Senator Kerry and Senator Stevens. As a result of their hard work, we have before us a good bill that furthers the goals and policies of the Magnuson Act. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this vital legislation today.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for years we have been asking passengers to pay money to support the safety needs of the aviation system. In 1970, Congress created the airport and airway trust fund as a means to make sure that the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] had enough money to build and support our Nation's airports and the FAA's own air traffic control system. The FAA's mission is to oversee the safety of the traveling public. When any accident occurs, as we have seen in the recent ValuJet and TWA accidents, there are many possible reasons for the accident. People on television are quick to rush to conclusions. We use the expertise of the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] to determine the cause of a crash. The Everglades crash scene, as Bob Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, has indicated, was extremely treacherous and necessitated a difficult investigation. The TWA accident presents the additional complication of a criminal investigation carried on side-by-side with the accident investigation. One thing is certain--the FAA must be fully funded to meet the challenges and aviation growth in the future. S. 1994 incorporates much of the text of S. 1239, the FAA reform bill, reported by the Commerce Committee last November. Those provisions call for an independent review of the precise needs of the FAA, followed by the submission of a funding proposal to finance the agency. The industry must recognize that ultimately we have to decide how best to support and fund the agency. Delay is no longer an option. Oversight of Safety When we take a broad perspective, we do know that aviation is the safest form of transportation. More than 40,000 people die each year in highway accidents. According to testimony before the Commerce Committee, more people die each year because of electrocution--525-- than because of airline crashes. Yet, the tragic crash of ValuJet flight 592 into the Florida Everglades on May 11 is significant because it may well have been avoidable. We can go back over every action by the FAA, every inspector general [IG] report, every report by the General Accounting Office [GAO], and still not resolve what is safe. If someone says ``you need more inspectors or better training for inspectors,'' and a crash occurs, the person pushing for more inspectors and training is touted as a sage by the media. Anyone, however, can pick any issue in the aviation field, make a broad statement, and tomorrow there may be a crash that may make the statement appear to be the essence of wisdom. The FAA oversees the activities of carriers and maintenance facilities through its inspector work force. Each air carrier is assigned a principal operations, maintenance, and avionics inspector. For a large carrier, there may be 30 to 60 FAA inspectors assigned to oversee its operations. In addition, the FAA uses ``geographic'' inspectors who, for example, are responsible for air carrier operations at a particular airport or area. The geographic inspector may conduct ramp inspections on a wide variety of aircraft types, even though the inspector may only be certificated on one aircraft type. As a general matter, FAA inspectors are extremely well qualified. An air carrier operations inspector, for example, is required to hold a pilot's license, with a minimum of 1,500 flight hours. The DOT IG's office testified on April 30 before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on problems concerning the inspector work force. Substantial and serious concerns were raised and as a result I asked the chairman for a hearing on that matter. The concerns raised by the IG included insufficient training for inspectors and the inadequate computerization of inspection reports. These are legitimate concerns that must be addressed. The FAA will be completing a review of its inspector work force perhaps this week. I wrote to the FAA Administrator expressing my desire to work with him to address the inspector issues. GAO has indicated that the FAA inspectors need substantial training, perhaps $17 million more than requested by the FAA. The training budget has been cut by 42 percent from the 1993 level. If we are to expect the FAA inspectors to do their job properly, they must be adequately trained and have the tools needed to do their job. For example, the FAA is struggling with developing a computer system to track inspector safety reports. The inspectors are frustrated with the new computer system, and spend far too much time inputting data, rather than doing inspections. The system is supposed to be able to aid the FAA in targeting its resources. FAA management must work with its work force to get that system back on track so that the inspectors have confidence in the system. DOT needs additional inspectors. Aviation Security Aviation security is an extremely complex issue. It involves technology, people, intelligence information, national security, and a recognition that there are people willing to commit heinous crimes aimed at our government and our citizens. On December 21, 1988, Pan Am flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. It took almost 2 years to pass legislation to address some of the problems that stemmed from that crash. Investigators in New York have not yet identified the cause of the crash of TWA flight 800, and numerous options are being considered. We have to let the investigators complete their mission. The NTSB, Navy, FBI, and State and local personnel are working hard to determine the cause of the accident. We do know this, however--the public deserves the best technology operated by the best trained individuals, to reduce the risks of a terrorist attack. Another thing is clear--security is going to be costly. The FAA has estimated that it will cost as much as $2.2 billion to install up to 1,800 machines at 75 airports. Today, there are approximately 14,000 to 18,000 screeners, paid an average of $10,000 to $15,000 per year. These screeners are one line of defense, but a critical one in the fight against terrorism. They need training, and they need to be paid in accordance with their responsibilities. The present turnover rate among these employees is extremely high. Unless we change the way we provide security, we cannot upgrade it. All the technology in the world still requires a person to watch a screen, listen to alarms, and be able to recognize materials that should not go on board an aircraft. No matter what we do, safety comes first. Nothing should go onto an aircraft without being screened. Cargo, company material, and baggage all should be subject to inspection. Security changes may require a fundamental alteration in the way air carriers provide services. Longer lines can be expected. Unfortunately, it is a price we must pay to deal with people in this world willing to stop at nothing. I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this bill. Noise Mitigation Programs

Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator will yield, I too want to assure the Senator from Oklahoma that we will work with him to address the problem he has highlighted.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is considering S. 1831, a bill which reauthorizes the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB]. As we know, all too well I might add, the NTSB is required to investigate transportation accidents. It is called upon immediately following a transportation catastrophe to send out the right people to carry out a thorough examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding each event. We can see evidence of NTSB investigators carrying out this mandate every day on the news as they continue the grim task of investigating the crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island. This inquiry is being conducted simultaneously with the ValuJet Flight 592 investigation in the Everglades. The NTSB is asked repeatedly to assist in investigations overseas such as the one a few months ago in Croatia where my good friend Ron Brown was killed in a military plane crash. When a barge hits a railroad bridge, or a train collides with another train, the NTSB is called upon to figure out what happened, and more importantly, to figure out how to prevent tragedies from recurring. Concerning TWA Flight 800, the NTSB is working with local and State officials, the FBI, the Navy, and most importantly, with the families. The investigation is a painstaking, detailed process--literally requiring divers to pick up by hand the wreckage 110 feet below the surface. The divers, working in teams, have done an extraordinary job to facilitate the NTSB's investigation. Teamwork is essential and the efforts of all involved are very much appreciated. The NTSB does excellent work. I would especially like to commend its Chairman Jim Hall and Vice Chairman Robert Francis for all their hard work and dedication. Their service on the NTSB could not have come at a more critical time, and I appreciate their great efforts as well as those of the other members of the Board and all the NTSB staff. As I have said before, if this were a perfect world, we would not need the NTSB. But as we have seen all too well in the last few months, we need the NTSB now more than ever. Ensuring the safety of our transportation system is of primary importance, and I believe passage of this bill is vital to that goal. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, very few cancer researchers have stressed the importance of diet in the prevention of cancer. Dr. Daniel Nixon of Charleston, SC is a pioneer in this field. I ask that there be printed in the Record an article from the Post and Courier profiling Dr. Nixon's professional accomplishments in preventative medicine. The article follows: Daniel Nixon--He Fights Cancer with Strawberries (By Dottie Ashley) Some people dream of having a lavish home in the Bahamas or owning a private jet. Dr. Daniel Nixon dreams of a super strawberry springing from the soil in South Carolina. If Nixon's dream comes true, the results could prolong the lives of thousands of cancer patients so that they, too, may dream once more. ``South Carolina is a perfect place for cancer research because here we have both tumors of affluence and tumors of poverty, a large population of the very rich and of the very poor,'' say Nixon. In the war against cancer, Nixon, associate director for Cancer Prevention and Control of the Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, is in charge of special weapons and tactics. As the Folk Professor of Experimental Oncology at MUSC, Nixon has mounted his attack on cancer with an arsenal of cancer-preventing compounds that block the formation of cancer cells. volunteers are tested A former associate director for the Cancer Prevention Research Program of the National Cancer Institute, Nixon has formed a networking arrangement between MUSC and other state agencies. To conduct his research, which is funded largely by grants from the Washington State Raspberry Commission, Nixon has called on the services of the General Clinical Research Center at MUSC to monitor the concentrations of ellagic acid in the blood and urine of 12 healthy volunteers who are fed bowls of raspberries. His research has been recognized by the Society for Nutritional Oncology Adjuvant Therapy, and Nixon will receive the Green Ribbon Award at a ceremony Sept. 18 in Philadelphia. The award is given by the society to recognize outstanding clinical research contributions to nutritional oncology in the areas of prevention, supportive nutrition and adjunctive therapy. Nixon has seen both sides of the cancer-treatment coin. ``For 13 years, I administered chemotherapy to cancer patients, and finally I had to convince myself that we were not going to get rid of cancer by treatment only, that we had to have prevention as well,'' says Nixon, who also is the former head of medical oncology at Emory University's Winship Oncology clinic.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the extraordinary life of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Cardinal Bernardin is one of America's most beloved and most respected Catholics. He is the son of Italian immigrants and grew up in my home State of South Carolina. I am proud to claim him as a product of the Palmetto State. He has had a tremendous impact on my life and the lives of thousands of others. Cardinal Bernardin was made a bishop in 1966, at 38, the youngest U.S. bishop of that time, and since then has held a wide range of leadership positions. As head of the archdiocese of Chicago, the Nation's second-largest, for 14 years, he has built a reputation for reaching out to non-Catholics and for trying to bridge gaps within the church. On September 9, Cardinal Bernardin was presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor. In his remarks, President Clinton said, ``As the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Bernardin is one of our Nation's most beloved men and one of Catholicism's great leaders. When others have pulled people apart, Cardinal Bernardin has sought common ground. In a time of transition in his Church, his community, his Nation and the world, he has held fast to his mission to bring out the best in humanity and to bring people together. Throughout his career, he has fought tirelessly against social injustice, poverty, and ignorance. Without question, he is both a remarkable man of God and a man of the people.'' In a column called ``Cardinal Virtues'' earlier this week, Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory also talked about the extraordinary life of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. She told of the grace with which confronting his diagnosis of terminal cancer. He spoke of his diagnosis as a ``gift,'' she said. McGrory writes, ``Why? Before he knew he was going to die, he said he had many fears.'' After the news, the Cardinal said, ``God has given me the gift of peace and tranquility.'' McGrory went on to say that Cardinal Bernardin hopes to write a book to help other cancer victims who are terrified by the diagnosis and lose heart. ``I have spent 30 years as a bishop trying to teach people how to live,'' he said during an interview. ``Now I will teach them how to die.'' Cardinal Bernardin is a remarkable man and I am honored to call him a friend. Mr. President, I ask that Mary McGrory's September 10 column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Washington Post, Sept. 10, 1996] Cardinal Virtues (By Mary McGrory) Under some pressure on the matter of the company he keeps, President Clinton surrounded himself with some classy people at the White House and gave the 11 of them the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award. The star of the occasion was a small, frail cardinal from Chicago, Joseph Bernardin, who accepted the medal in the East Room and then went out on the lawn to explain, gently, his differences with the donor. His Eminence is totally pro-life: He is against abortion, against capital punishment--both of which are favored by Clinton. Some Catholics held that, given his fundamental differences as well as on welfare reform, he should have turned down the medal. But Bernardin explained that it comes from the nation. His updating of Saint Thomas More's famous self- description, during a time of trouble with Henry VIII--``The King's good servant, and God's first''--came on a day of blazing heat and draining humidity. The cardinal, who was recently told by doctors that he has inoperable liver cancer and a limited time to live, went patiently from camera to camera. ``I will take care of all of you,'' he promised pastorally, and he did. Some thought he might be asked to perform an exorcism at the White House. As the scandal of the president's chosen familiar, Dick Morris, widens and deepens, fumigation might not be enough. Morris's sex life may be his own business, but his arrogance is not. The most popular Catholic cleric was the best possible counterpoint to the pond scum. After so much of the profane, the sacred was welcome. The cardinal startled many people when, recently in Chicago, he announced that he is bound for the Promised Land. He is in the midst of a project called ``Common Ground,'' which he had hoped to be a forum where American Catholics can discuss their differences on church matters. A mediator all his life, he is concerned with the rise of incivility and mean-spiritedness among the faithful. He was severely criticized by three of his brother cardinals, who feared the airing of unorthodoxy and possibly even heresy. He replied imperturbably that the dissent of Cardinals Bernard Law of Boston, James A. Hickey of Washington and Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia just pointed up the need for discourse. As for being stricken at a time of such plans, he called it ``a special gift from God.'' Why? Before he knew he was going to die, he said he had many fears, among them being unjustly accused--he was by a deranged young man who later recanted his story of sexual harassment--and cancer. ``God has given me the gift of peace and tranquility,'' he explained. He hopes to write a book to help other cancer victims who are terrified by the diagnosis and lose heart. ``I have spent 30 years as a bishop trying to teach people how to live,'' he said during an interview. ``Now I will try to teach them how to die.'' Conversations such as this rarely occur on the White House lawn, where hustle and push are the rule. Doubtless talks with the others who sat on the East Room stage would also have been edifying. The recipients had been carefully chosen not just for their virtues and accomplishments but for their direct appeal to various causes and ethnics. Rosa Parks, the woman who started the Montgomery bus boycott by sitting down for her principles, didn't make it in from Michigan in time for the ceremony, but she is a black heroine. James Brady, the White House press secretary who took a bullet for Ronald Reagan, personifies the gun control legislation opposed by Republicans; Millard Fuller is founder of Habitat for Humanity, the universally admired organization that builds homes for the poor and had Clinton hammering nails on his birthday; David Hambur is a psychiatrist for children; John H. Johnson is a black success story--he publishes Ebony and Jet; Eugene Lang sends East Harlem children to college--Jack Kemp, eat your heart out, Jan Nowak-Jezioranski, agent of the Polish underground, speaks to Poles; Antonia Patoja to Puerto Ricans; Ginetta Sagan, valiant young Italian resistance courier who survived Fascist torture and devoted her life to helping political prisoners; Morris K. Udall (D-Ariz.), former House environmentalist and wit, shows an appreciation for House members. Clinton needed to patch things up with Catholics. They grew accustomed to choice--they took other social issues into consideration--but were outraged by the president's failure to sign the congressional ban on a late-term abortion procedure. Honoring Bernardin, the most affecting U.S. prelate, is a nice gesture. But Bernardin, in his mild way, will continue to disagree on certain subjects in the most public way possible. He intends to join a large protest against later-term abortions on Thursday at the Capitol.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will preserve jobs in South Carolina. The bill temporarily suspends the duty on specialized glass for use in glass-ceramic stove tops. Corning Company has made an investment in Fountain Inn, SC to revive a factory that has been struggling. The temporary suspension of the duty on glass-ceramic stove tops will enable Corning to keep jobs in the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will preserve jobs in South Carolina. The bill temporarily suspends the duty on specialized glass for use in glass-ceramic stove tops. Corning Company has made an investment in Fountain Inn, SC to revive a factory that has been struggling. The temporary suspension of the duty on glass-ceramic stove tops will enable Corning to keep jobs in the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Just referring to the article, if you please, Mr. President, and everyone ought to read this article, it says: Globalization has created a disturbing anomaly. While U.S. exports grow robustly, the corporations that do most of the exporting are the busiest downsizers. When they fire everybody, it is a polite word, that is just downsizing so they are becoming more competitive. They are just, by gosh, getting rid of the United States worker and employing the offshore worker. But I quote this particular sentence: GE is a prime example because the company is widely emulated in business circles for its tough-minded corporate strategies. In 1985, GE employed 243,000 Americans and 10 years later, only 150,000. GE became stronger, then executive Vice President Frank P. Doyle said. But he conceded. We did a lot of violence to the expectations of the American work force. Get that sentence, the vice president of GE, when they cut down to 150,000 jobs, so-called downsizing, fired them. I used to have five GE's. I had one at Irmo. I have one still at Greenville which is doing well. I have one which was brought into Florence. It made cellular radios and now MRI's. It has taken the business away from competitors. But the one I had in Charleston has gone to Brazil. We are losing good plants down there, and here is why: ``We did a lot of violence to the expectations of the American work force.'' Mr. President, I ask that our colleagues refer to the Philadelphia Inquirer of Monday, September 9, Tuesday, September 10, and again today: Endangered Label ``Made in the United States.'' It is a wonderful article of how we are losing our industrial backbone, how small businesses lose out to foreign competition. I was asked at the Chicago convention, Mr. President, ``Senator, you Democrats, why don't you all do something for small business?'' I said, ``Oh, no, that small business crowd is organized by the National Federation of Independent Business.'' I have won recognition and awards from that group, but, generally speaking, they are not for the small business on this particular score, they are talking about free trade, free trade as retailers to make a bigger profit. I thank the wonderful Philadelphia Inquirer. This is the headline: ``Small businesses lose out to foreign competition.'' I want the NFIB to read these series of articles. Mr. President, referring just to one part, let's start off with the first paragraph: In early 1980's when stainless steel knives, forks and spoons suddenly surged into the United States from Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in response to lowered tariffs and cutthroat foreign prices, the domestic industry found itself in trouble. American producers, contending it was unfair competition, appealed to the United States trade commission to impose higher tariffs on imported flatware. The trade commission is an independent Government agency whose main job is to monitor the impact of the imports on the U.S. industries. If the ITC agrees with the complaint, the presidentially appointed commissioners may recommend that duties be imposed. Even so, there is no assurance that the duties will actually be assessed and, in most cases, they are not. The final decision rests with the White House which historically has refused to impose additional duties. After 5 months of study, the commission ruled on May 1, 1984, that stainless flatware was ``not being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury or the threat thereof to the domestic industry.'' On the contrary, the ITC held that the ``economic data on the performance of this industry failed to demonstrate the required degree of serious injury mandated by the statute. Rather, the industry is doing reasonably well.'' According to ITC findings, nine companies produced flatware in the United States in 1982. Today-- Now listen, Mr. President-- Today, most of them are either out of business or purchasing flatware from foreign services. Except for two small plants, Oneida, Ltd., in Oneida, New York, there is virtually no stainless steel flatware production in the United States. I could go down the list of commodities after commodities after commodities, and you can see, Mr. President, where these companies are just moving the strength--it is not just jobs--it is moving the strength of the United States. When they get to national defense, everybody comes out here on the defense authorization bill and votes overwhelmingly on a defense appropriations bill. But right to the point, they forget their history and how we got here and how we were able to maintain and sustain the strength of the greatest superpower. Mr. President, we are the last remaining superpower. Look at them run all around. The atom bomb, the nuclear bomb cannot be used--should not be used. We do not have the manpower that the People's Republic of China has and others have that are coming along now and are going to build up their military strength. And they do not care anymore about the 6th Fleet coming in to protect them. The name of the game is the economic warfare, and the great superpower--and if you read Eamonn Fingleton's book--``Blindside'' is the title of that book--you will find that within 4 short years, the largest economic power in this world will be the country of Japan. Already they are a larger manufacturer. Here is a little place not bigger than California, with 125 million compared to our 260 million, and vast resources, with oil and all the natural wealth that we have here, all the talent, all the research and everything else, and they produce more in Japan today, manufacturing, than the United States of America. Economically, their GNP, their productivity, will be greater than that of the United States. Their per capita income, right now they are richer than we are. We cannot get into their markets. We still, as a result of the fifth column, keep saying ``free trade, free trade, Smoot-Hawley, Smoot-Hawley.'' We are losing our shirts. We are losing our shirts. By the year 2015, the People's Republic of China will come along. They are producing economically. I just visited there in April, and I think they are going capitalistic. I think it will succeed. I hope. And we have our fingers crossed it will succeed. What do we need to do? We need to really start enforcing our laws on the books. Get rid of the International Trade Commission. You can see the political cabal that comes in any time they appoint a member. They have to swear on the altar of free trade, almighty allegiance, and everything else before they go over there. That is a big part of the fifth column. We have to quit financing. We have to actually someday repeal that GATT, World Trade Organization. We lost our sovereignty. In the Kodak case, we found out, Mr. President, we found out that we lost our sovereignty because the Japanese said, ``Go to the WTO,'' instead of really enforcing what we said on the floor of the Senate. They said, ``Oh, no, we're not going to do away with section 301.'' The Japanese have said, ``You have already done away with it when you signed up.'' You get these emerging nations and you see how they vote. Back in April we had these particular human rights violations in the People's Republic of China. We brought it up at the United Nations. The United Nations voted to have a hearing on it. Our friends at the People's Republic went down into Africa; they picked up the emerging nations' votes, and they said human rights was a nonissue. They have not even had a hearing. That is politically how that U.N. crowd works. When are we going to wake up in this land of ours and not understand the fifth column working against the American industrial worker? So we need more customs agents. And, yes, Mr. President, we need the Dorgan-Hollings measure to cut out these subsidies of tax deferrals for those who are induced with incentives to go abroad and make more money. We need to change our tax laws, a value added tax. If I manufacturer this desk in the State of South Carolina, I have to pay the income tax, the corporate tax, the sales tax involved, and everything else, all the taxes, and I ship it to Paris, France. If I manufactured this desk in Paris, France, they put on a value added tax of 15 percent, but when it leaves the port of Le Havre to come here to Washington, they deduct the 15 percent. That is a 15 percent disadvantage to a manufacturer in the United States of America, and we need the money. The Budget Committee, eight of us, bipartisan, in 1987, voted to get on top of this monster with a value added tax allocated to the deficit and the debt. But these pollster-politicians running around, ``I'm against taxes, I'm against taxes, I'm against taxes; I'm going to give you a 15 percent tax cut,'' when we are broke in the Government. Growth, growth, growth--there is no education in the second kick of a mule. How do you think this got up to a $5.23 trillion debt? We never got to $1 trillion until Ronald Reagan came to town with Kemp-Roth. And he debunked it. Senator Bob Dole debunked it. Howard Baker called it a ``riverboat gamble.'' George Walker Herbert Bush, President Bush, called it ``voodoo.'' But now we have a party running for national office on voodoo. When are we going to learn and sober up? The Dorgan-Hollings amendment is a wakeup call here to the reality of the greatness of this Nation. Historically, we had this in the very earliest days. David Ricardo in ``The Doctrine of Comparative Advantage.'' They came to Alexander Hamilton and James Madison and Jefferson, because they all joined in with Hamilton. The Brits said, when we won our freedom in this little fledging nation, they said, ``Look, you trade with what you produce best, and we'll trade back with what we produce best''-- ``The Doctrine of Comparative Advantage,'' economics 101, David Ricardo. Alexander Hamilton wrote a little booklet, ``Reports on Manufacturers.'' It is over at the Library of Congress. Do not read the entire booklet, but in one word he told the Brits, ``Bug off.'' He said, ``We are not going to remain your colony and just ship our agricultural products, our iron, our timber, our coal. We are going to be a Nation-State, and we are going to manufacture, we are going to manufacture and produce our own products.'' When they talk of tariffs, the second bill--the first bill had to do with the seal--the second bill that passed this great Congress that we stand in, on July 4, 1789, I say to the Senator from Nebraska, the second bill that we ever passed was a tariff bill of 50 percent on 60 articles going right on down the list. We built the greatness, the economic strength, this economic giant, the United States of America, with protectionism. We did it with Lincoln when we built the steel mills for the transcontinental railroad. We came to Nebraska under Roosevelt and said, for agriculture, we are going to put in price supports and protectionism, protective quotas that I support under Roosevelt to rebuild from the darkness of the Depression. With Eisenhower, oil import quotas, we have used protectionism. So do not come here and give me ``Smoot-Hawley protectionism. Are you for free trade?'' And everybody running around like children, hollering, ``There's no free lunch. There's no free trade.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The principal author could respond more accurately, but I am convinced we did that to try to get votes. I hope agriculture----

Mr. HOLLINGS. We are referring to the tax deferral section.

Mr. HOLLINGS. It is a modification of it.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me try to answer why there will not be one come and join the debate. It is easily understood. It is the result, of course, of our affirmative action policy after World War II of trying to rebuild the industrialized nations. It spread capitalism in Europe, and out into the Pacific rim. And our affirmative action policy called for various things to induce American investment overseas. We put in, as you can find in the early morning news now on the front of the business page, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, subject to assault because it is no longer needed. It was needed at that time. Industry had to be ensured against expropriation and the loss of their investment overseas. So we passed the Overseas Private Investment Corporation [OPIC]. Then we found that we could subsidize, give inducements by way of actual subsidy for export overseas, with the Export-Import Bank. And we put in various tax deferrals. The reason the distinguished Senator from North Dakota in our amendment is not going to win, as he says, today as you can only look at the Republican screen at Channel 2. And it says new taxes. Once it is labeled as new taxes, that crowd will run in the other direction because we live in this symbolic poster world of true-false, up-down, ``I am for the families, and against taxes; I am for jobs, and against crime.'' And that is all you get out of them--is symbolic nonsense. So they will not really get to the guts of the issue. It is not a new tax. It just says those who are paying taxes for production here should be on an equal footing and not penalized with American investment and corporations overseas for producing overseas. We are trying to cut out that deferral. As a result of our affirmative action policy and spreading capitalism after World War II--I am not debunking it, or regretting it. It has worked. The Marshall plan is one of the great success stories of all history by way of people taxing themselves. They think. They didn't have pollsters running around loose in the late 1940's to get these children to come to the U.S. Senate--true-false. Just look at the polls. I will go back home, and, ``I am against taxes.'' In fact, only 17 percent of the people in one poll taken at that time, Gallop, said at that particular time--that only 17 percent favored the Marshall plan. But we had division as they all talked to. Everybody wants to use the buzzwords, and they come on with their little 20-second sound bite, and said, ``we have the vision.'' There is not any vision in any of this stuff going on about gay marriages and everything else. They are not national problems whatever. When you get to a real national problem, as it is about the economic security--and I emphasize ``economic security''--you can find the Senators want it. I would amend the idea of just jobs because jobs appeals to the polls. You are for jobs, or against jobs. And it makes it just a little political nuance of a campaign. The truth is the security of the United States of America is an issue here with respect to this particular amendment. The passage of the amendment is not going to ensure the security. It is going to begin as a wake-up call, and a trend backward. I have described that the success of the United States, the strengths that we have as a nation, the security that we have as a nation, rests, as it were, on the three-legged stool: The one leg, the values of a nation. That leg is strong, and unchallenged. We sacrificed to feed the hungry in Somalia. We sacrificed to build democracy in Haiti. We sacrificed to build peace in Bosnia. Everyone the world around as we travel knows the great contributions and sacrifices made by American taxpayers for its values. The second leg is that, Mr. President, of course, of our military strength. That is unquestioned. But that third leg, that economic leg, without which we cannot foster values or protect ourselves militarily--and I emphasize in World War II we won on account of Rosie the Riveter; our industrial might overwhelmed Hitler; there is not any question about that--has become somewhat fractured and enfeebled, if you might, as a result of the affirmative action. Now, what was the affirmative action? As I said, not only the subsidies, the insurance, the deferrals, but get out of here, just scatter, let us get industry, get American investment abroad and spread capitalism. As I say, it has not only been successful but it has become unfairly competitive. When I say unfairly competitive, I mean that the other competitors in the Pacific rim do not practice free trade. Oh, they use the rhetoric of free trade, but I can tell you here and now, try to get into some of the markets. Our textile industry tried to get into Korea. They have got to get a vote of the Korean textile folks before they can come into Korea. Try to get into Japan. Oh, they talk a little here about Motorola is doing a little bit; Intel will come in a little bit. But really in trying to open up the markets, we have had a dismal record over some 50 years trying to get into the country that we saved that does not practice free trade. Come on. Everybody knows that. (Mr. ASHCROFT assumed the chair.)

Mr. HOLLINGS. What happens is that now we are confronted--and that is why you do not find them in the Chamber--with the opposition. You might call them the enemy here, the fifth column in this economic war. Let us start and list the soldiers in that particular opposition or enemy, that fifth column. The soldiers in that fifth column begin, of course, with the State Department. The State Department had an affirmative action of sacrificing the industrial might for friends. Fortunately, Secretary Christopher has changed that. Secretary Brown changed that to some extent. And we are beginning to change that. But that is the way it started. That was the best of diplomacy: ``Oh, don't worry; we are fat, rich and happy back in America.'' We have seen it over the 30 years I have served in the Senate. We started with these corporations that we induced overseas as nationals that became multinationals. They found out that they could produce more economically, make a profit for their stockholders, and as a natural development the nationals became multinationals. And the banks--Chase Manhattan, First Citicorp, all the big banks as of 1973--I remember back in the 1970's we found out that our large American banks were making the majority of their profits outside of the United States, so they were not really American banks. They were multinationals or had their, let us say, loyalty and nationalism, profitwise at least, outside of the United States, certainly not in the United States of America. So you have the State Department; you have the multinationals; you have the banks, and then, of course, with that money they developed the consultants and academia. All the consultants are not paid by those who are coming along talking about jobs and the economic security. You go to any of these conferences, these particular institutes all over this city are just rampant with these consultants who are talking, ``Free trade, free trade, free trade,'' shouting, ``Smoot-Hawley, Smoot- Hawley. We are going to end the world and go into a global depression.'' And otherwise academia. I do not have that booklet with me. There was a very sharp economist, Miss Jacobsen, who put out the booklet here some 10 years ago showing how academia had been taken over by the foreign entities and the multinationals. You go up east to the Ivy League and find out their investments up there to bring about the thought and get a free ride into dumping their goods back here in the United States and they will not allow us into their markets. So you have academia; you have consultants; you have the multinationals; you have the multinational banks and, of course, the State Department. Then when we debated back when I first came here--I will never forget it--and we passed the textile bill--it did not get past the House but we passed one here in the late 1960's, early 1970's--at that particular time we found out the real opposition that gears up the votes in this Chamber. And that is the retailers. In order to bring it to the attention of our colleagues, we went down into the stores here in Washington, DC, and we got a shirt that was manufactured in Taiwan--well, a ladies blouse, I remember correctly, one made in Taiwan for $32 and the one made in New Jersey was also $32. We found a catching glove made in Korea at $42 and one made in Michigan at $42. We went down the list. We piled the desk up to show that the retailers were not by way of global competition reducing the price. They were making a bigger profit. So the retailers are really geared up and they call their stores around and everything else of that kind and they intimate to us as politicians, U.S. Senators, and they come in and zoom in on us and we have to be for ``free trade, free trade. Let's don't Smoot-Hawley, start a worldwide depression.'' So you have then the retailers. Then, of course, you have the Washington lawyers, and none other than now the Reform Party Vice- Presidential nominee, Dr. Pat Choate. In his book ``The Agents of Influence,'' he took one country, the country of Japan, and listed out how they had over 100 Washington firms, lawyers, consultants, paid over $113 million to represent the people of Japan here in the Capitol, where the 100 Senators, the 435 congressmen, the cumulative salaries of the 535 is $73.1 million. By way of pay, the people of Japan are better represented here in Washington, DC, than the people of the United States of America. You have a powerful force. Chair the Commerce Committee, which I have for years and am now the ranking member, and get these trade measures and others to come up, and they zoom in immediately with the Washington lawyers, and I mean powerful ones, Mr. President. They are no more powerful than the Special Trade Representative. Heavens above. We saw my good friend, Bob Strauss, we saw my good friend Bill Brock, all representing the foreigners after they had been the Special Trade Representative. It was like Colin Powell going over to represent Saddam. And what did we have to do? Put a rider in the bill of the Special Trade Representative; they could not do that after 5 years. It caught Mickey Kantor--he was the first one--now Secretary Kantor, the Secretary of Commerce, when he was Special Ambassador Kantor, but we had to finally put it in there to stop that. But we had the best of the best trained, the best of the best friends and influence, ambassadorial rank, coming around, and after you are talking ``free trade, free trade, Smoot-Hawley.'' I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. Agriculture, that crowd there, I will never forget when I went out campaigning in the Presidential race, ``Dutch'' Reagan's special station in Des Moines, IA, you get on there at 5 o'clock for questions. They said no Democrat would appear. So, you know, if it was for free--I did not have any money--I got on there, and they said, ``Senator, you come from a textile State and you want all this protectionism and subsidies and everything else. How do you expect to get a vote out here in agricultural Iowa?'' I said, wait a minute, let me correct the record. No. 1, I happen to be for subsidies. I happen to be for the quotas and the protectionism for agricultural quotas. We have wonderful farm folks, growing soybeans, wheat, corn, everything else in South Carolina. But let me get the record clear. We do not ask for a subsidy for textiles. We do not ask for Export-Import Bank financing. We do not ask for tax deferrals. When I get to that Nebraska corn, when I get to Colorado and these agricultural States, that is the crowd that runs around hollering, ``Free trade, free trade, keep subsidizing me, keep financing me, keep deferring me.'' Because why? Our friend Wayne Andrus has all the news on Sunday. He has ``Meet the Press,'' he has ``This Week With David Brinkley,'' he has even the public television and everything else. All he talks is, ``exports, exports, exports,'' and we come in here like monkeys on a string hollering, ``exports, exports, exports.'' I mean, we have a regular drumbeat. I would ask the Senator from North Dakota who drafted our amendment, I am sure oil is a matter of national security, and we put in special provisions, as we well know, for oil.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The tax deferral itself, obviously. Oh, yes, that encourages it.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The cost and everything. IBM moved all their research overseas. We are losing not only our jobs in manufacturing, we are losing our research centers and everything else of that kind.