Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Modifying the deferral itself.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Tax, income made from production overseas. There is a tax deferral for that, and this does away, partially, with that by the amount of products shipped back in and jobs lost. That is the way the amendment is worded.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Do they do it? They make sure that they do not make a profit. You ought to come and see how they highball the cost of the parts that they ship through the Port of Charleston, SC, and send up to, let us say, Nissan-Tennessee to make automobiles up there. They get a high cost for the part so Nissan-Tennessee is not even making a profit in Tennessee. We have tried to correct that one. Oh, they have every gimmick in the book. When you get with these tax lawyers, they know how to get around anything and everything. Incidentally, I have an article here about Nissan, and Nissan is moving to Mexico. We will get into that on NAFTA. We love to get these foreign investments, but they are just passthroughs now. An expansion of BMW that had come to Spartanburg, SC, is going into Mexico. They will follow the market, which is fine. It is a matter of taking care of your stockholders and profits and that kind of thing. Business is business. But we have to understand that the business of the U.S. Senate is to look at the overall economy, and when we have these deficits in the balance of trade, over $1.5 trillion in the past 12 years, come, we have to do something about it. You will get some who come here, like my distinguished friend from New York, he will get up, ``Why, America has always been a great nation on account of commerce. We are a trading nation. Are we going back on our history?'' We were a trading nation of a plus balance of trade, not a minus. Not a minus. What does the record show, heavens above? That thing goes up, up, and away. I think it was in 1992 we finally got it under $100 billion, only to a $96.1 billion deficit; in 1993, it was $132.6 billion; 1994, a $166.1 billion deficit in the balance of trade--more imports than exports. Not what my friend, Wayne Andrus from Archer- Daniels-Midland--``exports, exports, exports.'' We have to look at the overall picture. In 1995, $174 billion? We are going up, up, and away. We are losing our shirt and enjoying it. We, as Senators, are telling the American people, ``We are fat, rich, and happy. Don't worry about your economy. All you have to do is worry about gay marriages. The States are taking care of it.'' We come up on the silliest thing. Instead of balancing the budget, we will give you a constitutional amendment so we can run on it. Come on.

Mr. HOLLINGS. They overprice the parts and assemble them here. That is what they are doing.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Oh, yes, that is right.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I think our tax law does. But there are some----

Mr. HOLLINGS. In the Treasury Department, it just does not get done. You and I know we need, for example, hundreds more Customs agents. They have told us down at Treasury there are billions of transshipments. We just got China, and there is a case right now of over $5 billion. It is really a sad case. In the textile debate, I said, ``Wait a minute, I will withdraw this textile bill entirely if we just enforce the law.'' So you are right. If we enforced our tax laws, if we enforced our trade laws, our customs law, our import duties, we would do a lot to solve this. If I were king for a day, I would start by abolishing the International Trade Commission. Every time they find injury, a violation of our trade laws, dumping, over at the International Trade Administration, in Commerce, then they have to buck it over to the International Trade Commission, and that crowd constantly bubbles, ``free trade, free trade, free trade,'' and finds against us. So, the business folks in America say, ``Why even bring the case? It takes you 3 or 4 years. You go through all that gauntlet with Washington lawyers and costs, and when you finally get it, you are not going to win anyway''? So they say, ``We will just move our production overseas.'' That is the good reason for the production moving overseas and the loss of jobs here. But, Mr. President, let me sum up that particular matter of the fifth column, so we will understand it. I would no longer include our State Department, but I could certainly start off with our multinationals, our multinational banks, the consultants, academia, the retailers, the Washington lawyers, and, of course, the Special Trade Representatives, all representing them and heading up these particular entities. When you get all of those coming in giving you a false history--free trade, free trade, Smoot-Hawley, Smoot-Hawley--that is the reason for this particular bill. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota, I think, used the expression ``go far afield.'' That is my intent, to bring understanding. Unless we can get a grasp of our history and how we built this strong America and what is really the opposition, the fifth column that confronts us, we are not going to get a competitive economic society. We are going to just service the economy and take in wash and serve hamburgers to each other. We will have no manufacturing capabilities. When war comes, we will have no military production. We will have to depend, like Japan, on the gulf war, and that is why you panic. They say, ``No, we are going to cut it off to the United States and say no to her and she won't be able to do these things of protecting freedom the world around.'' So it is not far afield. This is to break open the door. This particular amendment is a wake-up call, and it is not a spurious one whatsoever. It is current. I refer, Mr. President, to the article, once again, of our distinguished friend, William Grieder, former editor at the Washington Post and now the editor of Rolling Stone. I ask unanimous consent the ``Ex-Im Files,'' an article dated August 5, 1996, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the people of the Republic of China characterize me as the ``Senator from Boeing.'' I realize that the French airbus was competing with us, and we are proud of Boeing and we are proud of its products. I am a competitor and I want to see the United States win at all costs. However, when we debated our textile bills and I passed one vetoed by President Carter, two vetoed by President Reagan, one vetoed by President Bush, get them to pass it, keep knocking on the door, I kept watching our colleagues from the State of Washington who opposed us with the free trade, and how wonderful to have trade overseas, which nobody denies. Everybody believes in trade. Instead of abolishing the Commerce Department, I am standing on this side of the aisle trying to defend commerce and to defend the department and trying to defend trade. But what you have to do is emphasize this flow of imports into the United States and find out why. Let me read from this article one little paragraph about Boeing. In the article, ``The Ex-Im Files,'' by William Grieder. It was previously printed in the Record: The White House also led cheers for Boeing because Boeing was also stomping its competitors in the Chinese market. In 1994 alone, Boeing sold 21 737s and seven 757s to various Chinese airlines and obtained nearly $1 billion in Ex-Im loans to finance the deals. When President Clinton hailed the news, he did not mention that Boeing had agreed to consign selected elements of its production work to Chinese factories. The state-owned aircraft company at Xian, for instance began making tail sections for the 737, work that is normally done at Boeing's plant in Wichita, KS. The first order for Xian was for 100 sets, but that was just the beginning. In March 1996, a China news agency boasted that Boeing had agreed to buy 1,500 tail sections from Chinese factories, both for the 737 and the 757. The deal was described as ``the biggest contract in the history of China's aviation industry.'' Now, Mr. President, one, that is in violation of the Export-Import Bank law. So it is not partisan guilt or liability or misunderstanding. The President of the United States, hailing it under the Export-Import Bank, is for production in the United States, not to finance production in China. You ask what to do, how to wake them up. ``Free trade, free trade. It is wonderful for trade and you don't lose jobs and it is good for the economy.'' Here are the facts. As I warned 25 years ago, or almost 30 years ago, in that debate, I said, wait until it hits you. Last year, to Mexico we lost 10,000 textile jobs. We said in the NAFTA debate that we were going to lose them. Now we know from NAFTA, we have gone from a plus balance of $5 billion exports, exports, exports--how about the imports?--to a deficit of $15 billion. And those who oppose us will admit we have lost at least 300,000 jobs. Point: Boeing is having it happen to them. If you are going to lose your textiles, you are going to lose your flatware, you are going to lose your steel industry, your manufacturers and industrial strength. You are going to lose one thing we are preeminent in, airplane manufacturing, and finance it in violation of the Export-Import Bank. Then if we haven't done anything else, I say to the Senator from North Dakota, we have at least awakened them, given them a wakeup call for what is going on, because it's going to happen in Washington and in Wichita, KS, where they make the wonderful planes we are so proud of. But they are going to be losing the jobs. Airbus is taking over. I opposed the Ex-Im contract with Japan. Wait until the Japanese and Chinese start manufacturing aircraft. Then I want to see this crowd here. We will come in coveralls when we can't afford decent clothing, hollering ``free trade, free trade, free trade.'' This country is going out of business. We need to wake up. These are the kinds of things to debate. Let's take that Dorgan-Hollings amendment and vote it up, and don't say this is an amendment against trade. This is just an amendment to put the foreign manufacturer on the same basis as American manufacturers for American corporations. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple. It increases the reimbursement for funeral and burial costs and specific related expenses to $10,000 for Federal civilian employees who die as result of injuries sustained in the performance of duty. This amendment would apply to the dedicated civil servants who were tragically killed in the line of duty while accompanying Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on his trade mission to Bosnia and Croatia. And it would apply to the survivors of those Federal civilian employees who died during the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Under current law, Federal civilian employees who die in the performance of duty receive only a $1,000 reimbursement for funeral and burial costs, and related expenses. This amount was set in 1960, and it has not been adjusted since that time. This is not the case for military personnel. In 1990, at the beginning of the gulf war, Congress increased death-related benefits for the survivors of the military personnel killed in the line of duty. Military survivors are currently provided slightly more than $10,000 for funeral and burial costs. My amendment recognizes that civilian employees are no less dedicated and they are all too often called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice in the service of the United States. Further, I should note that this amendment does not require additional appropriations. It provides the discretion to agency heads to pay these increased benefits from existing appropriations. Mr. President, in short, this amendment provides for equity and updates current law. This is a good amendment that I believe all my colleagues should support. I urge its adoption. amendment no. 5253 (Purpose: To provide for training of explosive detection canines) At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following new section:

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, Mr. President, that gives a general feel for the amendment that I cosponsored with the Senator from North Dakota, just a minuscule part, but it will start maybe in the other direction the conscience and the awareness and the understanding of us as Senators about this important particular problem. We are giving deferrals of $2.2 billion over 7 years to companies using your taxpayer money and my taxpayer money. Talking about the deficit, using our taxpayer money to get them out of the country, to lose the jobs. We have a financial gimmick, the Eximbank; they call it the ``bank of Boeing'', to, by gosh, move the jobs over there. Now they have taken over in Europe, and you watch, in China, they are demanding now and they have in the Record the particular article that we had about the number of tail assemblies being manufactured for the 27 747 planes ordered by the People's Republic of China. We have now orders over there to manufacture in China over 1,000 planes. So, gradually the value to the economy of these exports is being diminished. We are losing, losing, losing, and we act like we are happy about it, running around here competing with ourselves over 60 percent of exports and imports being U.S.-generated. I don't blame the Chinese, the Japanese, and all for the ignorance or the lack of awareness on the part of the Government of the United States and its policy. I would ride a free train. I do blame--the agents of influence, Senator. They got 100 Washington law firms, paid $113 million to represent one country--Japan. Do you know what it is for the 100 Senators and the 435 House Members? Mr. President, $71.3 million. The people of Japan, by way of pay, are represented better in Washington than the people of the United States. When are we going to wake up? When are we going to sober up? When are we going to compete? You will get a little flavor of it in an hour when they announce that Vice President fellow, because he will run all over the country and run a touchdown. I am telling you right now you are going to see an ``O.J.'' going around running touchdowns economically when this fellow gets started because he knows the subject. This is a serious amendment to bring the attention of the U.S. Senate to this all-important problem of losing our standard of living and jobs. Let's quit financing it, let's stop subsidizing it, let's stop bankrolling it, and let's stop using that symbolic nonsense of free trade and protectionism. We have to come here and start protecting our industrial backbone. Your security as a nation is like a three-legged stool. One leg is the values of a nation. We sacrificed to feed the hungry in Somalia. We sacrificed to build democracy in Haiti. We sacrificed to try to build peace in Bosnia. Unquestioned. The second leg, Mr. President, is that of military strength. Unquestioned. The third leg, economic strength, is fractured. Our stool of the United States is about to topple because what we are talking about is family values and homosexual marriages and all kind of them silly things coming around here like we in Congress can control these things, and our duty and responsibility to pay the bill goes wanting. Our duty and responsibility is to develop, in a bipartisan fashion, a competitive trade policy because that is what we are into. Europe is protectionist. They enforce their laws. In 1980, we had a $4 billion deficit in the balance of textile trade, and Europe had it. They enforced their particular trade laws and they are down to less than $1 billion, and we are up to a $36 billion deficit in the balance on textile trade. So the Senator from New Hampshire has to know where his textile industry has gone. I thank the distinguished colleagues. I thank, particularly, the Senator from North Dakota. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. One, Smoot-Hawley, Mr. President, was passed 8 months after the crash. It could not have caused the crash we had that occurred in 1929. Smoot-Hawley was June 1930. It only affected one-third of the trade. As is stated here, Alan William Wolff, in ``Improving United States Trade Policy,'' ``Smoot- Hawley was only half of that which had been put into effect by the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act of 1922. Even after enactment of Smoot- Hawley, two-thirds of all U.S. imports, in value, entered the United States duty-free.'' A statement, also, by the distinguished professor of economics at MIT, Paul Krugman, who just recently had an article, and we will get to that--I did not realize this was coming up --in the London Economist relative to monetary policy. He stated, in ``The Age of Diminished Expectations,'' ``In popular arguments against protectionism, the usual warning is that protectionism threatens our jobs--the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931, we are told, caused the Depression, and history can repeat itself.'' The claim that protectionism caused the Depression is nonsense; the claim that future protectionism will lead to a repeat performance is equally nonsensical. Now, Mr. President, within 3 years in 1933 we had a plus balance of trade. Trade at that time was only about 1 percent of our GNP. It is up to about 17 percent to 18 percent. It was not a factor, really, but that is the false history that these politicians run around and they will call the Senator from North Dakota ``Smoot,'' and they will call the Senator from South Carolina ``Hawley.'' There they are on the floor again. They are trying to get in protectionism and start a depression. Mr. President, when they get to trade deficits, I have another article that we want to have printed in the Record, because they all talk, ``exports, exports, exports.'' They never want to talk about imports. I want to have printed in the Record the merchandise trade deficits since 1979, and I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will be as brief as I possibly can. I will not take long. This is a subject that really deserves several days of debate. But, in a capsule, we are going to bring it right to a head, I think, in the next couple of hours, in that Pat Choate, the author of ``Agents Of Influence,'' has been selected as the Vice Presidential candidate by Ross Perot, in this so-called Reform Party. Mr. Choate was the vice president in charge of policy at TRW. When he published this book, which factually has never been challenged, he, of course, was relieved of his post as vice president of TRW and has been out as a consultant to industry. There is no question that finally, finally, in this election, trade and jobs will really come into focus, as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota is bringing right here. Let me hasten to add, I support, of course, our Democratic ticket of Clinton-Gore and will continue to support them. I have tried to work-- with respect, unsuccessfully, of course--on NAFTA and GATT to change our trade policy and save us from these two flawed agreements. But we are going to have to try to do our dead level best to bring them into the real world of trade and jobs, and I am confident that the selection of Mr. Choate will really bring it front and center. There is no question, don't put this gentleman in a debate with any of the persons mentioned here, and he is far, far more informed. They do not have to bring up the case of Smoot-Hawley and think you are going to show a picture and rattle this gentleman. Let me first commend my distinguished colleague from North Dakota. He has been very erudite in this particular matter, because he feels keenly about the two really great issues facing our Nation. One, of course, is trying to get this Congress to pay the bills. And you heard earlier today the distinguished Senator from North Carolina holler, ``Up, up and away, the debt.'' The national debt has gone to some $5.2 trillion. I remember well when President Reagan came to office, it wasn't even $1 trillion. We had 38 Presidents of the United States, Republican and Democrat, 200 years of history, and never a trillion-dollar debt, with the cost of all the wars--Revolutionary, 1812--right on up--Civil War, Spanish American, World War I, II, Korea, Vietnam, with the cost of all the wars, we had not gotten to a trillion-dollar debt. Now, without the cost of a war, in 15 years we have gone to $5.2 trillion. And, as a result, we are raising taxes a billion dollars a day. I use that expression, ``raising taxes a billion dollars a day,'' advisedly for the simple reason is, Mr. President, you have to pay the interest costs. They say there are two things in life unavoidable: death and taxes. Make it a third: interest costs on the national debt. We have to pay that. Republicans and Democrats vote every time to pay the interest costs on the national debt. So that is a billion a day for nothing. That is not for schools. That is not for defense. That is not for education or housing or the environment. You don't get anything for that. You are just paying for the past profligacies of these Congresses. That is problem No. 1. Problem No. 2 is barely mentioned, and I speak advisedly about jobs, because I have been in the game. I didn't come here as a neophyte. We can start off 37 years ago. When I took office, we had an agriculture State. When I left, we had an industrial State. Anybody connected with the history of our great State of South Carolina will tell you the technical training program that we instituted is a big attraction for industrial investment and expansion, period, for South Carolina, New Hampshire, or anywhere else. I offered Governor Sununu in the Presidential race in the early eighties to come up there and institute my technical training, but New Hampshire wanted to leave it to the industries. I talked to my friends at Wang, in, Nashua. I said, I don't see how you expect any expansion except to run away from the taxes in Boston, coming up Highway 128, or whatever it is, to get out of the taxes in that beautiful State of New Hampshire, which everyone will agree is one of the most beautiful in the entire Nation. But be that as it may, we are not just talking philosophically as an economist or anything else, we are talking business sense. I have worked firsthand with the chairmen of the boards, the vice chairmen, come on down to No. 6 man who really has to get the operation in the black. That is the gentleman or lady that counts. And when you give them a spread sheet and you tell them the hourly wages and how it is going to come out, when they break ground, when the plant will be complete, you can get in operation in 7 months or a year or less, whatever it is, you are beginning to talk sense, and that is the way we work at it. Right to the point, our poor friends in Alabama went totally overboard. In Alabama, they paid over $300 million to get Mercedes Benz. I was in that competition. I will never forget meeting with the Mercedes executives. I carried them down to South Carolina to Bosch, and at Bosch, I showed them where they not only were making the fuel injectors, but they were making the antilock brakes for the Mercedes Benz. They were making the antilock brakes for the Toyota, for all Ford cars and all General Motors cars. I showed them a good little country boy from Dorchester County who had been trained in our technical training system, sent to Stuttgart and learned the German apprenticeship system and was instructing in Charleston, SC, the German apprentice system. The man from Mercedes said, ``This is what we want. We are looking for a port. We are looking for the skills.'' But the great executives back in Germany were looking for money, so we lost out on that one. I only introduce that because these rat-a-tat talks about ``I'm for jobs, I'm for jobs,'' they don't know anything about the retaining, anything about the work in trying to get the job there, keep the job there and get the expansion, which we are doing in South Carolina. Having said that, Mr. President, I notice my distinguished friend had to talk almost defensively. He said, ``Wait a minute, I'm not trying to put up a wall or anything else.'' It is very unfortunate I have to do the same thing. I am speaking defensively trying to qualify as you might a witness in a case, because this is the real case of the United States of America and nobody wants to try it, Republican or Democrat. Oh, no, they want to ignore it. Let me go right to the heart of the matter. Yes, in the cold war, we had to sacrifice our industrial backbone in order to spread capitalism and bring about freedom in the Pacific rim and we used the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe, and it worked. Nobody is complaining about that sacrifice. I used to testify back in the fifties before the old International Trade Commission--International Tariff it was called at that particular time. They said, ``Governor, what do you expect these emerging countries to make, the airplanes and the computers?'' Let them make the clothing and the shoes. That is why 86 percent of the shoes on this floor are imported; 66 percent, two-thirds of the clothing you are looking at is imported. So I said, ``Yes, you have to give the lesser skilled jobs to the emerging countries,'' but we have done that. As my friend, Senator Dole, says, ``Been there, done that.'' So all right, it worked. Now we are into a global competition, and who is making the computers and who is making the airplanes? Our competitors. So don't come now with this argument about we are rebuilding the world. We have to rebuild the United States. Our standard of living has gone out of the window. You cannot be a world power--let's talk security and national defense--you cannot be a world power unless you are a manufacturing power. Ten years ago, we had 26 percent of our work force in manufacturing. We almost had half at the end of the war. That is what won the war. I spent 3 years overseas in World War II. Yes, we had brave soldiers. These people are talking about the veterans' record. But Rosie the Riveter won World War II. We inundated them. I can see me now saying, ``Send those planes. Keep sending them.'' They kept shooting them down, but we had more. Building No. 1 down in Marietta, GA, was spitting out five B-29's a day. Rosie the Riveter, our industrial backbone, won World War II, and we are losing world war III, the economic war, because instead of now going from half to 26 percent 10 years ago, today we are down to 13 percent. That up east Harvard group would give that lecture, ``small is beautiful, service economy,'' all these here nonsensical arguments. And we are going to the poorhouse. That is why real wages have dropped 20 percent in the last 20 years, for the simple reason that the big multinationals have increased their profits by moving offshore. Mr. President, we are competing with ourselves. Mark it down. I am not worried about Japan. I am not here to bash Japan. I am here to bash me, us, you, the Congress, the silly policy. What we have in manufacturing is the cost of labor is 30 percent of volume. And we know it is a given. We had many witnesses testify to that in our particular hearings, that you can save as much as 20 percent of volume of sales by moving offshore to a low-wage country. Take a company, a manufacturer with $500 million in sales, they can keep the head office, the sales force here in America; but they can move their manufacturing offshore and make $100 million at 20 percent or they can continue to work their own people and go bankrupt, because that is the competition. Do not talk about the global competition. I am talking about the fellow next door that has already moved. When you come up here, they dance around hollering, ``retrain, retrain, retrain.'' I want to say a word about that to get it on the record, because we know about training. We do not have to wait on Washington to get us industrial expansion in South Carolina. But Oneita Mills closed recently in South Carolina. We had 487 jobs making these T-shirts. We got that 35 years ago, a beautiful little plant, wonderful workers. The average age there was 47 years of age, Mr. President. Retrain them. Do it Secretary Reich's way, the Secretary of Labor. Go ahead and retrain them; and tomorrow morning give me 487 expert computer operators. Are you going to hire the 47-year-old computer operator or the 20- or 21-year-old computer operator? To ask the question is to answer it. You are not going to take on the health costs, the retirement costs of the 47-year-old. You can keep on retraining them. They are out in this little rural town, scavenging, trying to make enough money, where their husbands probably were in the tobacco allotment. They want to cut that out. Together they work and save enough money to send the boy to Clemson. I am seeing it happening, and I am coming around here hearing ``skills, skills.'' We have skills. Do not give me that. I have skills coming out of my ear. And do not give me any of these other arguments they are talking about, product liability, and all of these other silly--why do you think we have Hoffmann La Roche and BMW. And go right on down. And we have now 50 Japanese plants. I have almost 100 German plants, a bunch of British plants. Michelin--the French--they just announced another expansion. I remember calling on them in Paris in 1961. Now they are going up to 11,600 employees, Senator, with their North American headquarters in Greenville, SC. I got Bowater; I have got their North American plant in Greenville, S.C. So let us get on with what the Senator from North Dakota wants to talk about, and that is, these freebies that are being given out to continue a policy that was well- conceived in order to spread capitalism and defeat communism in the cold war. We have won that war. Now we look around, and we have sacrificed the working people of America, and our standard of living. And the job is for you and I to be realistic and start building it back up. And do not come--I can hear it now, because I can tell you, Senator, once they chose Pat Choate, you are going to find the multinationals, they are going to come down here on your necks and heads around here, ``free trade, free trade, protectionism, protectionism, protectionism.'' Let me plead guilty. I am a protectionist. We have the Army to protect us against the enemies from without. We have the FBI to protect us from the enemies within. We have Social Security to protect us from the ravages of old age, Medicare to protect us in ill health. The fundamentals of government, that is what we are up here for. I remember when Ronald Reagan was sworn in in the rotunda. He raised his hand to preserve, protect, and defend. And when we came back down here on the Senate floor and started talking about it, he said, ``Oh, no, we don't want to be protectionist.'' You darn right I want to protect our industrial backbone, our standard of living, and the jobs of America. And I want a competitive trade policy. We are not competing. We have been taken over by a fifth column within the ranks in this land of ours. Remember, we heard this same argument about comparative advantage and free trade from David Ricardo in the earliest, earliest of days. Or the Brits, once we got our freedom, they said, ``Now, just you little fledgling nation, the United States of America, you trade back with the mother country with what you produce best, and we will trade back with what we produce best,'' the doctrine of comparative advantage, free trade, free trade, free trade. And you know what Alexander Hamilton said? He wrote it in a little booklet, ``Reports on Manufacturers.'' Get a copy of it. There is one left. It is on guard over there at the Library of Congress where I hope to be tonight because they have a wonderful reading going on over there. But this is even again more important. And in the ``Reports on Manufacturers,'' Alexander Hamilton told the Brits in one line, ``Bug off. We are not going to remain your colony. We are not going to continue to ship our agricultural products, our timber, our iron, our coal, and bring in your manufactured products. You have to be a nation State. You have to have a preeminence in manufacturing.'' The second bill, Mr. President, on July 4, 1789, that actually passed this Congress was a protectionist bill, setting a 50-percent tariff on 60 some articles going on down the list. And we built this United States of America, this economic giant with protectionism. Abraham Lincoln, when he was going to get the transcontinental railroad--that same type of crowd is buzzing around us here tonight; and they will be around tomorrow; and they will say, go ahead and let us have free trade, free trade--they told President Lincoln that we should get the steel from England. He said no. He would build our own steel mills. When they got through, they had not only the transcontinental railroad, but they had their own steal capacity. And so it was in the Depression, in the darkest days. Franklin Roosevelt came in with his competitive free trade under Cordell Hull. And Dwight David Eisenhower, in 1955, put quotas on imported oil because we had to sort of build up our capacity. And we have done that from time to time. And now is a time again when we survey the horizon, and start talking as realists. And quit giving us these symbolic baloneys, malarkeys such as Smoot-Hawley. Mr. President, right to the point, I ask unanimous consent--I am trying to save time here--I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the record made by our distinguished former colleague, Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania entitled ``The Myth of Smoot- Hawley'' back in 1983.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it shows we lost 1.5 trillion bucks in deficits. That means more imports than exports. I could get into the argument about exports creating 20,000 jobs. The Department of Commerce finally revised that just 6 weeks ago. It is only 14,000 jobs. The exports are not the reason. I am quoting from Business Week, September 2, just 8 days ago: Indeed, exports are not the reason for the second quarter deterioration in the trade deficit. That blame goes to imports. Exports dipped 0.3 percent in June to $69.7 billion, but much of the decline reflected a drop in the volatile aircraft shipments. For the quarter, total exports rose at a 7.3 percent annual rate, up from 2.6 percent in the first quarter. So far, the dollar's recent strength has not forced exporters to raise prices. Export prices fell 0.5 percent in July and, excluding farm products and the soaring cost of grain prices, are down 1.6 percent from a year ago. That plus improving economies in Mexico and Canada should continue to lift exports in coming months. The story for imports is much less encouraging for growth. Despite a 3.3 percent drop in imports in June, goods and services from abroad in the second quarter still soared at a 13.9 percent annual rate, up from an already rapid 11.7 percent gain in the first. Rather than get into the whole article, every time I get to this particular part of the debate they all want to talk exports, exports, and that is more or less like the octopus squirting oil on the troubled waters and escaping in its own dark mist. Exports are not our problem; they are our opportunity, and we have every office in the Lord's world working with exports. I work with the Export Council and gave out the awards in my own backyard just this past month. But the truth is that it is imports and it is the deficit of $1.5 trillion in the last 12 to 13 years. Now, Mr. President, the competition, that is what we really want to talk about. The competition is our sales. I remember these folks coming to me in the early days now that we have been in this game for at least 35 years, and the export job creation myth--I use a figure in the debate I got from the Department of Commerce of 41 percent back in 1978, 41 percent of the imports in the United States were U.S. companies that moved their manufacturing offshore, and bringing it back in, the finished product. It was 41 percent then, and since that there has been a deluge. But if you go over there, they give you the 41 percent. I have been like a detective trying to get the truth out of that crowd, but they are controlled. They are controlled on this particular score, particularly when you make these joint ventures. You cannot go into China. You cannot go into Japan. You cannot go into Indonesia unless you make a joint venture, and that part you have 49 and they have 50 percent, and that part of your manufacturing, the 49 percent, is not counted in the figures. That is why we do not realize how we have gone from some 26 percent in manufacturing 10 years ago down to 13 percent. However, 50 percent of the U.S. exports come from 100 companies, 80 percent from 250 companies, a very small part. Our distinguished colleague from North Dakota is talking about small business. These are the same companies, now, that have been the largest downsizers. Did you hear that right? Those are the ones who were talking about downsizing. General Electric in 1985 had 243,000 jobs; in 1995, they are down to 150,000. IBM shaved 132,000 jobs in the last 10 years; it now employs more people abroad than at home. Abroad is 116,000. We have a foreign company--Mr. President, IBM is not a United States company any longer. They have more workers overseas, 116,000 and 111,000 here. Intel reduced U.S. employment last year 22,000, down to 17,000. General Motors in 1985 had 559,000 and are down to 314,000 last year. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point another emphasis on this measure, and that is by William Greider on August 8, 1996, in the Rolling Stone, ``How the taxpayer-funded Export- Import Bank helps ship the jobs overseas.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I wanted to say a word of praise for James Lee Witt of the Federal Emergency Management Administration. I was highly critical back during Hugo, at the time we had that hurricane in 1989, and justifiably so. What I did is go down at that particular time, on September 21, the next morning, with Senator Thurmond, and we reviewed the tremendous damage done to our air base, our naval base, the outer islands, the homes and everything, and realizing without electricity, communications, and otherwise, I could not do any good. I flew back late that Friday evening and early Saturday morning, I got on the phone to FEMA, and I outlined the needs of generators, food, water, tents, and at personal insistence, Mr. Morris, then the FEMA Director, said, ``Senator, you don't understand the procedure.'' I said, ``What procedure?'' He says, ``You know you are supposed to get the mayor to advertise, and if he can't find two contractors to do the job, to satisfy the needs, then he bucks the request up to the Governor and the Governor does a similar thing; he surveys and gets two refusals, and then they come to Washington.'' I said, ``Are you serious?'' He said, ``Of course.'' I said, ``You are crazy,'' and I hung up and called General Gray of the Marine Corps, who was out at that time on the Army-Navy golf course. I said, ``General, the ox is in the ditch,'' and I outlined it. He said, ``Don't worry, we will get it in there.'' We have Parris Island located in the particular hurricane path down there. When I got down there the next day or day and a half, I ran into Gen. Ernest Troy Cook, who is a lieutenant general in charge of Quantico in the line of command. He motioned to me to be rather quiet. I said, ``What is the matter?'' He said, ``They have a procedure where I am not supposed to be helping, but it is obvious that the general called me, General Gray, and I am going to continue to do it.'' But go easy on this FEMA fellow because he is trying to hold up everything I am trying to do. They were trying to cancel help. Here, today, we find Director James Lee Witt is down in North Carolina going over the needs of all the people down there. He was down there on Friday morning in South Carolina and in North Carolina when Senator Thurmond and I went there. I have a brochure here, the pertinent parts of which I will include, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record to show you how organized and orchestrated he was.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we know that you have to get generators around at the fast food places. People do not have power. They are not preparing meals. You are working trying to get the mud out of the house and trying to stop the roof from leaking. So, if you can get a hamburger, fine. Incidentally, we also found that we needed food stamps for 10 days to be honored and redeemed at the fast food places. We needed a supply company. People volunteered all around the country, and it started flowing in. And we were afraid that the perishables would spoil. So, Gen. Colin Powell sent me a supply company from Georgia up to Charleston so we could handle it. All of these kinds of things we worked on, and finally came to the floor with the holdup by the mayor. That occurred, and the letter came from FEMA that the Governor had to take care of 25 percent of the cost, and the Governor bucked 13 percent of the 25 percent to the mayor. The mayor said, ``Wait a minute. If I have to pay 13 percent of all costs for all of these troops and help and companies, what have you, I will have to raise taxes. After everybody is taken care of and happy, I will be out of office.'' So, more or less there was a freeze of the balance. When we got on the floor here in the U.S. Senate with Alan Simpson on the other side of the aisle, after day 8, 9, and finally day 15, we cleared that because we had the law in the Pennsylvania case where they pay 100 percent. James Lee Witt was there 100 percent with all of the units of government and joining hands and doing an outstanding job. So having criticized FEMA, I think it is only noteworthy here and deserved that I should say that we properly praise him. I thank the distinguished leaders of this bill for yielding me the time.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment which will permit Charleston County and the city of North Charleston, SC, to improve coordination and to increase their capacity in building a more viable urban community. This legislation will assist both the city and county in providing affordable housing and suitable living environments and by expanding economic opportunities for a number of the county's low- to moderate-income citizens. Charleston County contains two entitled cities: the city of Charleston and the city of North Charleston. With the population of these two cities excluded, the county has too small a population to qualify for a CDBG entitlement. Two recent developments, the BRAC decision to close the Charleston Naval Base and Shipyard and the designation of an area adjacent to the city of North Charleston as an enterprise community, have increased the need for coordinated planning and development by the county and the city of North Charleston. That Charleston County is not entitled and has to compete with other communities in the State for CDBG funds has hindered the area's ability to do the meaningful long-range planning required to recover from base closure and to respond to the opportunity provided by the enterprise community designation. The city of North Charleston has entered into a cooperative agreement with Charleston County to relinquish its entitlement to allow the county to qualify. This will not only enable the county to expand capacity building in the two neighborhoods that were designated as enterprise communities, but will enhance the capacity of the entire region to respond to the myriad problems and opportunities created by closure of the Charleston Naval Base and Shipyard. This amendment is budget neutral and breaks no new ground; it merely follows precedent set by numerous other communities across the nation that have found a cooperative, coordinated approach to community development eliminates duplication and directs more of their dollars to the intended beneficiaries. I urge its acceptance.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, just a brief statement. Someone, sometime, somehow should get out here and support the wonderful leadership of our distinguished colleague from Arkansas on this particular score. I have been relatively quiet on the space station because I have learned after 30 years how to stay quiet up here. With respect to any kind of space program, necessarily having been the chairman and now the ranking member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I am very much an enthusiast of the space program. So my brief comment is to save that space program. I have watched it over the past several years. I can remember back in 1993 that we had President Clinton coming in and having to ask that the space station be redesigned. Why, Mr. President? Because in 1984 when we started this program it was sold to the American public as an $8 billion program. Then in 1987 it went to $16 billion. By 1993, when President Clinton took office, it was some $30 billion. So the distinguished President said, ``Well, go back to the drawing boards. I don't want to come in here as the new Chief Executive and cancel an important program for space, so let's see what we can do to redesign it.'' And the cost went down on that redesigning to some $19.4 billion. That was in early 1993. By the end of the year, those working on the program realized that even that was not realistic. So the President and Vice President announced a joint program with the Russians of $17.4 billion. That was only for the station itself. We found out, after we went down and asked GAO to look at the costs and everything else, that with launch and operational costs through the year 2012 the total cost of the space station is $93.9 billion. So I am sitting there and I am trying to be a good friend, which I am, of the space program. I think it has been a wonderful American success. There is nothing that has thrilled me more than seeing the distinguished Senator seated here in front of me, the Senator from Ohio, who is a true American hero--we all thrilled at his courage and his valor and his common sense. I am sorry we differ on this particular score. But I am forced to talk money. When I talk money, Mr. President, I get to that space program. I found out, when I listened at the hearings, that the science, aeronautics, and technology account of NASA, everything except the human space flight and the civil service salaries and related mission support--all the rest of it, other than the human space flight and civil service salaries--was some $5.9 billion this past year and by the year 2000 is estimated to be or cut back by NASA to $5.2 billion, which does not take care of inflation, which does not take care of cost-of- living adjustments and everything else. So I am in a catch-22 situation. I want the space station like everyone else, but I am looking at the formative basic fundamental space program, including these unmanned programs as well as the rest of the human space flight account, and I am saying that investment in human valor and technique and courage, namely, the astronauts themselves, what we have going on in Houston and at Cape Kennedy is just too valuable to risk cutting to save this massive hardware project. We should not be cutting back and paring and scraping and everything else in NASA, like that little debate we are having and have just voted with respect to the Bion Program. I agree with that scientific program. The Post picked up the word ``monkey'' and said you can run a touchdown on this one, saying let us get rid of this program. We already had humans up there and now you want to finance $15 million worth of monkeys. That is good at election time, but it is outrageous nonsense. Our problem here in the U.S. Senate is that we choke on the gnat and swallow the camel. All those debating and wanting to do away with the $15 million should be voting for the $15 million, and all those looking at space and its program, generally speaking, ought to be withholding votes for the space station. There are priorities, there are times we have to make choices, and we still, Mr. President, are not out of the woods in a budget sense. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, has been a leader in trying to get us on a pay-as-you-go basis. He knows exactly of which I speak. I can give you exact figures where we still are increasing that deficit and debt. I say that too quickly, where we are still increasing that deficit. When we increase the deficit, we increase the debt, which increases interest costs on the debt, which increases taxes, because you can't avoid interest costs. They say there are two things you can't avoid, death and taxes. Well, put interest costs in the column with taxes. They can't be avoided. They must be paid. All of that crowd running around on the floor of the U.S. Congress saying, ``I am against taxes, I am against taxes, I am against taxes'' are raising the debt $1 billion a day, and $353 billion is the estimate. If growth continues and inflation starts in, it will be more. I was around, Mr. President, as chairman of the Budget Committee when we were at less than $1 trillion in debt. Then comes what gobbled us all up, namely that supply-side nonsense, which my distinguished friend from Kansas, Senator Dole ridiculed. He had a favorite story. I can hear it on the floor of the Senate. ``Mr. President, there is good news and bad news.'' You would say, ``Senator, what is the good news?'' He said, ``A bus load of supply-siders just went over the cliff.'' You said, ``What is the bad news.'' He said, ``There was one empty seat.'' Now, my poor friend Bob Dole has taken the empty seat, and we are doing it seriously here. Haven't we learned anything going from less than $1 trillion under Ronald Reagan, who was going to balance the budget in 1 year, to $5 trillion under the Reagan-Bush administrations? And they are talking about who is really for balanced budgets. Well, to balance the budget, we have to do all of the above, as they say in the classroom, on that local option quiz, not just true or false. It is all of the above. Yes, you are going to have to freeze spending, cut spending, and yes, you are going to have to increase taxes to get on top of this monster. We in the Budget Committee, with eight votes, two of our distinguished Republican colleagues, and six of us on the Democratic side, 10 years ago almost voted for a value-added tax dedicated to eliminating the deficit and the debt. The reason we did it is because we realized that freezes were insufficient. The spending cuts under the best of the best spending cutters, Ronald Wilson Reagan, were not enough. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was not enough, automatic cuts across the board. So we needed taxes. We voted it at that time. Now, all discipline and reality is gone. You have to withhold new programs. That was my vote against voluntarism--against AmeriCorps. Maybe I am the only Democratic Senator who voted against it. I helped start the Peace Corps. I can give you chapter and verse, where we had the conference down in Miami, and we called first the then-candidate, John Kennedy. We could not get him and we got Myer Fellman, his legislative assistant on the line. I proposed a program to Jim Gavin at the conference, head of Arthur D. Little, and quoting William Paley, called it the Freedom Corps. That is how we started it. The first broach of the subject was in Cadillac Square in Detroit, and we fleshed it out during the week to be presented in San Francisco. So I believe in voluntarism, which the Peace Corps is. But I had to withhold on this new program because in order to get it we played the peanut in the shell trick. We took away 347,000 student loans--the money, therefore--in order to finance 25,000 volunteers, who get paid at the cost of $25,000 apiece. I wish I could have gotten out of high school hoping to go to college and jumped into a $25,000 program. But that is what we are doing here, trying to identify with pollster politics. We have a real problem on our hands. We are not talking here on the floor of the U.S. Senate about saving the space program, and we should be. When I see my distinguished colleague who has really gotten into the subject in tremendous detail, the Senator from Arkansas--and nobody here to support him--I feel I must speak by way of conscience, having listened, because we got these hearings before our committee on all the facets of the particular program. When you get the environmental satellites, the aeronautics programs, all those things that will be just practically decimated, and in order to go for a space station, then it is just bad planning--particularly at a time when the United States of America is in a position of having to stop the hemorrhage of tax increases, $1 billion a day. Tell the American public out there. The media are not doing their job. They have no idea. The candidates can run and get elected, saying, ``I am for cutting spending, I am for cutting spending, I am for cutting spending.'' Then they come up here with that silly nonsense of wanting to abolish the Department of Commerce. Who do you think I am on the telephone with now? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I am trying to find out whether that hurricane now bearing down on South Carolina is going to hit my house again like Hugo did down in Charleston. What are we going to do with the patent office? We can go down the list of the various endeavors at that department. Our export endeavor was ridiculed. They ridiculed Secretary Brown, who was doing what every Governor worth his salt did. He got offices in London, in Tokyo, talking to industry, and that is what the Secretary should be doing. That is the effort they want to get rid of, the Department of Commerce, and departments for energy, education, and housing, and then they come around here and put $93.9 billion in a program that is going to really hurt the basic space program, where we are going to have to really cut back on the valued astronauts, the human side, to pay for this hardware. We are just going to make it truly unattractive for them. Their sacrifice is great enough. They practically have to separate themselves from their families and everything else. Their diligence, and time and time again, their discipline and everything else is the hardest work in the world. There is not enough pay. But then they say, like we have at NIH--if you cut the research, the smart graduates see that of all the particular research grants that were presented this year, we were able to actually fund less than 20 percent of those who passed muster competitively. We are not funding. So the smart researchers, scientists, and graduates say, well, there is no future there. I don't want to work my way into trying to get a space station, saying, ``Wait a minute. There is no future there.'' So I have voted to support the basic space program. I have never taken the floor because I did not want to, as chairman of that particular program, indicate opposition to space. I worked with the distinguished Senator from Ohio when President Reagan was in office to save the space program. I will work again to save the space program. Mr. President, that is why I am here this afternoon to save the space program. In this budget climate, we cannot keep both the basic space program and the space station. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I rise to support final passage of the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996, legislation to implement the protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, a longstanding concern of the American scientific community and environmental groups. The protocol was signed by the United States 5 years ago and approved by the Senate in the 102d Congress, but implementing legislation remains to be completed. Senator Kerry and I introduced S. 1645 earlier this year to accomplish that task. In pressing for legislation, our primary objective has been to provide a balanced approach that preserves both the environment and the ability to conduct scientific research in the Antarctic. Having had the opportunity to visit Antarctica, I can attest to its special beauty and pristine wilderness. While on the continent, I was impressed by a number of dedicated scientists operating under difficult circumstances to help us to understand better our global environment. The Antarctic provides scientists with a truly unique laboratory to conduct activities that cannot be done anywhere else. However, as important as these scientific activities are, we must be honest and accept the fact that the U.S. Antarctic Program has not always been the best steward of the Antarctic environment. Scientists themselves understand the critical importance of preserving the Antarctic as a natural reserve for generations to come. While much has been done in recent years to improve U.S. operations in the Antarctic, S. 1645 will help to ensure that present and future U.S. activities by scientists, explorers, tourists, and others comply with the highest environmental standards. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, for his persistent and thoughtful leadership in balancing environmental protection and the pursuit of greater scientific understanding. And I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this legislation today. Amendment No. 5186 (Purpose: To provide for a polar research and policy study)

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, 5 years ago I opposed legislation extending our Nation's Highway Program. I did that, not because we do not need highways--they have been a fine investment--but because the funding distribution to States had become so egregiously unfair that it threatened support for any highway program at all. It is interesting to note that today we have proposals in the Congress essentially to follow that logic by repealing most of the program to the States on the basis that the Federal funding pattern is so incredibly wrong. As such, I make the case again today for a fair and rational distribution of highway funds and put the Senate on notice that the distribution must change when the Congress considers highway program revisions next year. The U.S. General Accounting Office has studied highway spending again since the 1991 ISTEA legislation, and reported in November 1995 what Senators have long known--a formula that provided South Carolina 52 cents this year for a dollar of taxes contributed is unfair and untenable. This is not just a matter of my State receiving less. It is a matter of how best to distribute funds for our Nation's highway needs. Objective studies have found that our current funding pattern is wrong, outdated, and unconnected to highway needs. As the GAO put it, ``the States' funding shares for the four major programs are divorced from current conditions,'' and the underlying factors for the two largest programs are ``irrelevant to the highway system's needs.'' Particularly, the current distribution to States includes significant, indirect influences from earlier, unfair funding patterns. It includes postal road factors from the 1921 formula, population data from the 1980 census, and bridge costs reported from States nearly a decade ago which were wildly disparate. Why should South Carolina have gotten $38 per square foot to replace bridges while the District of Columbia received $223 per square foot? Why should these amounts be grandfathered into today's allocations? Not only did the GAO declare last year that these formula factors are ``irrelevant,'' it suggested better factors more than 10 years ago. At that time, the GAO recommended making a transition to a more fair formula in a way that did not hurt states that had been receiving a greater than equitable share of highway formulas. But as the GAO reported last year, ``However, the Congress elected not to change the basic formula structure.'' Mr. President, I voted against ISTEA because of the objective, well- documented unfairness of the highway formula, and will vigorously oppose any highway bill next year that does not provide fairness. The legislation we are introducing here today is a good starting point to better address our Nation's highway needs.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, 5 years ago I opposed legislation extending our Nation's Highway Program. I did that, not because we do not need highways--they have been a fine investment--but because the funding distribution to States had become so egregiously unfair that it threatened support for any highway program at all. It is interesting to note that today we have proposals in the Congress essentially to follow that logic by repealing most of the program to the States on the basis that the Federal funding pattern is so incredibly wrong. As such, I make the case again today for a fair and rational distribution of highway funds and put the Senate on notice that the distribution must change when the Congress considers highway program revisions next year. The U.S. General Accounting Office has studied highway spending again since the 1991 ISTEA legislation, and reported in November 1995 what Senators have long known--a formula that provided South Carolina 52 cents this year for a dollar of taxes contributed is unfair and untenable. This is not just a matter of my State receiving less. It is a matter of how best to distribute funds for our Nation's highway needs. Objective studies have found that our current funding pattern is wrong, outdated, and unconnected to highway needs. As the GAO put it, ``the States' funding shares for the four major programs are divorced from current conditions,'' and the underlying factors for the two largest programs are ``irrelevant to the highway system's needs.'' Particularly, the current distribution to States includes significant, indirect influences from earlier, unfair funding patterns. It includes postal road factors from the 1921 formula, population data from the 1980 census, and bridge costs reported from States nearly a decade ago which were wildly disparate. Why should South Carolina have gotten $38 per square foot to replace bridges while the District of Columbia received $223 per square foot? Why should these amounts be grandfathered into today's allocations? Not only did the GAO declare last year that these formula factors are ``irrelevant,'' it suggested better factors more than 10 years ago. At that time, the GAO recommended making a transition to a more fair formula in a way that did not hurt states that had been receiving a greater than equitable share of highway formulas. But as the GAO reported last year, ``However, the Congress elected not to change the basic formula structure.'' Mr. President, I voted against ISTEA because of the objective, well- documented unfairness of the highway formula, and will vigorously oppose any highway bill next year that does not provide fairness. The legislation we are introducing here today is a good starting point to better address our Nation's highway needs.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct a grievous error committed by U.S. negotiations in the final hours of the NAFTA negotiations. This error has ripped apart the social fabric of dozens of communities as factory after factory in the wool and wool apparel industry have shut their doors. Let me state for the record that I supported the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement, but I was a vigorous opponent of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The bill I introduced today is not aimed at scuttling the NAFTA. At another time I will debate the merits of the NAFTA. Instead the bill is designed to close a loophole in the NAFTA that has exposed the wool and wool apparel industry to a tidal wave of Canadian imports and has left the industry without a fundamental right to impose a safeguard against import surges. How this industry lost its right to impose a safeguard is one of the tragic stories in the history of trade agreements. In the wee hours of the morning our negotiators bargained away the wool and wool apparel industry in order to secure the Canadians agreement to several provisions of the NAFTA. Mr. President the NAFTA contains a rule of origin for textile products that was supposed to benefit and encourage production in North America. A special tariff preference level was established for fabrics that were in short supply or unavailable. A gentleman's agreement was reached that the products coming in under the TPL would be spread out over a broad range of product categories. Instead, the Canadians have flooded the United States market in one product category, wool suits. These suits which have been dumped into the U.S. market are not made of North American fabric, which is readily available. Instead these suits are made of fabric produced in China, Turkey, and Italy. The last I checked, these countries are not in North America. Since 1988 as a result of the abuse of the TPL, production of wool suits has declined by 40 percent. Dozens of companies have suffered losses, layed off employees, or in some cases declared bankruptcy. Grief, the third largest manufacturer of suits in the United States, was forced to close plants in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Over 1,300 workers have lost their jobs. The 500 Fashion group, makers of Botany 500, announced that it will close two plants in Pennsylvania and one plant in Florida. Over 1,000 people are now without work. Plaid, the second largest manufacturer of suits, was forced into bankruptcy. Plants were closed in Georgia, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, and 1,500 jobs were eliminated. The same sad story can be told in the fabric industry. Frostman Co., the second largest producer of wool fabric, was forced into bankruptcy. Burlington Industries, the largest producer of wool fabric, has suffered a 30-percent drop in its menswear wool fabric, business and laid off over 1,000 employees. What recourse do these companies have? Can they, like every other industry in America turn to their Government to seek relief? No, that option was dealt away in the dark of night. So the bill I introduce will correct that situation. It directs the United States Trade Representative to negotiate an agreement with the Canadians. The bill would permit Canada to maintain the same overall level of wool apparel exports to the United States while at the same time preventing serious injury to the United States industry by adjusting the distribution among different product lines. If the Canadians fail to come to an agreement the bill requires that the President apply MFN duty rates to all wool apparel TPL imports from Canada as of March 1, 1997. Mr. President the men and women were unfortunate pawns in an international negotiation. It's time we stood with them and gave them there rights back and protect their jobs.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct a grievous error committed by U.S. negotiations in the final hours of the NAFTA negotiations. This error has ripped apart the social fabric of dozens of communities as factory after factory in the wool and wool apparel industry have shut their doors. Let me state for the record that I supported the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement, but I was a vigorous opponent of the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The bill I introduced today is not aimed at scuttling the NAFTA. At another time I will debate the merits of the NAFTA. Instead the bill is designed to close a loophole in the NAFTA that has exposed the wool and wool apparel industry to a tidal wave of Canadian imports and has left the industry without a fundamental right to impose a safeguard against import surges. How this industry lost its right to impose a safeguard is one of the tragic stories in the history of trade agreements. In the wee hours of the morning our negotiators bargained away the wool and wool apparel industry in order to secure the Canadians agreement to several provisions of the NAFTA. Mr. President the NAFTA contains a rule of origin for textile products that was supposed to benefit and encourage production in North America. A special tariff preference level was established for fabrics that were in short supply or unavailable. A gentleman's agreement was reached that the products coming in under the TPL would be spread out over a broad range of product categories. Instead, the Canadians have flooded the United States market in one product category, wool suits. These suits which have been dumped into the U.S. market are not made of North American fabric, which is readily available. Instead these suits are made of fabric produced in China, Turkey, and Italy. The last I checked, these countries are not in North America. Since 1988 as a result of the abuse of the TPL, production of wool suits has declined by 40 percent. Dozens of companies have suffered losses, layed off employees, or in some cases declared bankruptcy. Grief, the third largest manufacturer of suits in the United States, was forced to close plants in Virginia and Pennsylvania. Over 1,300 workers have lost their jobs. The 500 Fashion group, makers of Botany 500, announced that it will close two plants in Pennsylvania and one plant in Florida. Over 1,000 people are now without work. Plaid, the second largest manufacturer of suits, was forced into bankruptcy. Plants were closed in Georgia, Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, and 1,500 jobs were eliminated. The same sad story can be told in the fabric industry. Frostman Co., the second largest producer of wool fabric, was forced into bankruptcy. Burlington Industries, the largest producer of wool fabric, has suffered a 30-percent drop in its menswear wool fabric, business and laid off over 1,000 employees. What recourse do these companies have? Can they, like every other industry in America turn to their Government to seek relief? No, that option was dealt away in the dark of night. So the bill I introduce will correct that situation. It directs the United States Trade Representative to negotiate an agreement with the Canadians. The bill would permit Canada to maintain the same overall level of wool apparel exports to the United States while at the same time preventing serious injury to the United States industry by adjusting the distribution among different product lines. If the Canadians fail to come to an agreement the bill requires that the President apply MFN duty rates to all wool apparel TPL imports from Canada as of March 1, 1997. Mr. President the men and women were unfortunate pawns in an international negotiation. It's time we stood with them and gave them there rights back and protect their jobs.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of my good friend from Kentucky, Senator Ford, and the tireless efforts of my colleague in the House, Congressman John Spratt. Mr. President, in the last year alone we have lost over 150,000 jobs in the textile and apparel industry. Just last week, Springs Industries announced it would close several plants and lay off 850 employees. Our trade deficit in textiles and apparel stands at an appalling $35 billion. As bad as that number is, the sad fact is that $35 billion underestimates the true size of the trade deficit. Because of the massive amounts of transhipment that have flooded our shores, the actual trade deficit is some $6 billion larger. What is left of the quota system has become a porous sieve, subject to the manipulation of shady importers and retailers who look the other way at fraudulent schemes designed to evade our quota system, and steal jobs from the American worker. The legislation being introduced will shut down the illegal evasion of our quotas. It slaps harsh penalties on customs offenders, and it provides customs with adequate resources to enforce our textile agreements. Mr. President, the time has come for the administration to crack down on this lawless behavior and stand up for the American worker.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts of my good friend from Kentucky, Senator Ford, and the tireless efforts of my colleague in the House, Congressman John Spratt. Mr. President, in the last year alone we have lost over 150,000 jobs in the textile and apparel industry. Just last week, Springs Industries announced it would close several plants and lay off 850 employees. Our trade deficit in textiles and apparel stands at an appalling $35 billion. As bad as that number is, the sad fact is that $35 billion underestimates the true size of the trade deficit. Because of the massive amounts of transhipment that have flooded our shores, the actual trade deficit is some $6 billion larger. What is left of the quota system has become a porous sieve, subject to the manipulation of shady importers and retailers who look the other way at fraudulent schemes designed to evade our quota system, and steal jobs from the American worker. The legislation being introduced will shut down the illegal evasion of our quotas. It slaps harsh penalties on customs offenders, and it provides customs with adequate resources to enforce our textile agreements. Mr. President, the time has come for the administration to crack down on this lawless behavior and stand up for the American worker.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Lt. Gen. Paul E. Blackwell, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans of the U.S. Army, who will retire on 26 July 1996. Lieutenant General Blackwell's career spans 31 years in which he has given distinguished service as a soldier, leader, and visionary for our military. Let me briefly recount to you the career of this distinguished servant of our Nation. A native of South Carolina, Lieutenant General Blackwell graduated from Clemson University where he earned both a bachelor and masters of science. He entered active duty as a second lieutenant in 1965 as an infantryman. Since then, he has commanded at platoon through division level. Lieutenant General Blackwell has served in every type of U.S. Army division--light, airborne, mechanized, motorized, and armor. He has held an extraordinary variety of command and staff positions, including commanding general, 24th Infantry Division (mechanized) and his most recent assignment as deputy chief of staff for operations and plans. Other key assignments include commanding general, 2d Armored Division(- ), Garlstedt, Federal Republic of Germany; commander, III Corps (Forward), Maastrich, The Netherlands; assistant division commander, 3d Armored Division and commander, Hanau Military Community, Federal Republic of Germany; deputy director for operations, National Military Command Center, Joint Staff, Washington, DC; commander, 1st Brigade, 9th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA; chief of staff, 9th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA; G3 (operations officer), 9th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, WA; commander, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division, Aschaffenburg; Brigade S3, 2d Brigade, 3d Infantry Division, Kitzingen; S3, 2d Battalion, 325th Infantry, 82d Airborne Division. Lieutenant General Blackwell's combat experience includes two tours in the Republic of Vietnam and service in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm. During his tours in Vietnam, he served in various positions to include commander, Company D, 3d Battalion, 60th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division and platoon leader of an airfield security platoon. During Operation Desert Storm, Lieutenant General Blackwell served as the assistant division commander of 3d Armored Division. Lieutenant General Blackwell's career spanned a period of enormous changes and great turmoil requiring vigilance coupled with decisiveness to ensure our Nation's security. He has adapted to new and diverse and integrated technologies to assist the Army to change both intellectually and organizationally to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Throughout his three decades of service, Lieutenant General Blackwell provided flawless moral character and vision for our Army. He led by example and significantly contributed to the transformation of the Army from a cold war, forward deployed force, into a power projection force, ready to defend the national interest in any corner of the world, whenever the Nation called. While meeting the challenges of today, he prepared the Army for tomorrow as well, with a farsighted and far- reaching vision of the conduct of future war. His determination to keep the Army ``trained and ready,'' his sense of responsibility to his soldiers and the Nation, and his understanding of both our history and the future of armed conflict have given this Nation an Army capable of achieving decisive victory now and into the 21st century. Lieutenant General Blackwell's career reflects selfless service to our Nation and the essence excellence we expect from our military leaders. Through the decades of service and sacrifice, he has been supported by a loving family. Lieutenant General Blackwell's family is a critical part of his success. Janet Blackwell and his son, Paul, have served the Nation by providing unconditional love and support through numerous deployments and countless family moves to maintain the homefront for this dedicated soldier. Lt. Gen. Paul E. Blackwell is the quintessential professional, loyal servant of the Constitution, and caring leader for America's sons and daughters, on behalf of the Congress of the United States and the people we represent, I offer our sincere thanks for your service.