Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will put you in there with me.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.

Mr. HOLLINGS. It is cleared on this side.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Billy Buck, official No. 939064, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, United States Code. The Billy Buck was constructed in Miami, FL, in 1980, and is a motor vessel presently used as a recreational vessel. It is 30.2 feet in length, 10.8 feet in breadth, has a depth of 4.8 feet, and is self- propelled. The vessel is owned by William E. Walpole of Wadmalaw Island, SC. Mr. Walpole would like to utilize his vessel, in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. However, because the vessel was previously owned by a foreign interest and because the owner could not furnish a complete chain of title to the vessel, it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owner of the Billy Buck is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel for charters. His desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Billy Buck to engage in the coatwise trade and the fisheries of the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Billy Buck, official No. 939064, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, United States Code. The Billy Buck was constructed in Miami, FL, in 1980, and is a motor vessel presently used as a recreational vessel. It is 30.2 feet in length, 10.8 feet in breadth, has a depth of 4.8 feet, and is self- propelled. The vessel is owned by William E. Walpole of Wadmalaw Island, SC. Mr. Walpole would like to utilize his vessel, in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. However, because the vessel was previously owned by a foreign interest and because the owner could not furnish a complete chain of title to the vessel, it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owner of the Billy Buck is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel for charters. His desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Billy Buck to engage in the coatwise trade and the fisheries of the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, like many voters, I have heard before the siren call of welfare reform--that if we only pass revolutionary legislation, the recipients will work, the poor children will be nurtured, and benefits reductions will be returned to taxpayers. Frankly, I am very skeptical that this plan will work better than those that went before. First, its promises continue to feed rife misperceptions. Note the following facts: Welfare actually is less than 2 percent of our budget. Illegitimacy, far from rising due to the United States welfare system, has risen across the board to approximately one third of all births (not just welfare births) in America, France, and England despite different welfare systems and declining welfare benefits in the United States. True reform that employs recipients and cares for children is likely to cost more in the short run, not less. In short, the savings proposed in this legislation are unlikely to materialize. The bill would not stop the rise in illegitimacy. And, without a newfound commitment from Governors to fill the gap in child care, children will be worse off. Furthermore, the basic funding mechanism for this legislation is seriously flawed. Southern States, for a variety of reasons including lack of funds, have built smaller welfare programs as part of the historic Federal-State welfare funding partnership. Now, the legislation before us proposes to end that partnership and provide each State with a frozen level of funding and a requirement to employ 50 percent of recipients. Reasonably, the Federal Government should provide an equal per-child amount to each State under this approach since each State must reach the same target. Instead, this reform bill locks States in at the vastly different historic funding rates: Federal funding per child New York..........................................................$2036 Rhode Island.......................................................2244 Washington.........................................................2340 Vermont............................................................2275 Alaska.............................................................3248 Massachusetts......................................................2177 South Carolina......................................................393 Alabama.............................................................408 Arkansas............................................................375 Mississippi.........................................................331 Texas...............................................................405 I don't know why southern children are worth so little to our current welfare theorists. There is no reason--indeed, it is offensive--to freeze in place past inequities in the name of forward-looking reform. Again, South Carolina and Rhode Island will each be given about $100 million per year to run their respective welfare programs, although South Carolina has more than three times as many people. Similarly, South Carolina has slightly more people than Connecticut--3.5 million rather than 3.2 million--but under the Dole plan, the Federal Government will give Connecticut more than twice as much--$247 million yearly instead of $103 million for South Carolina. In effect, the South Carolina taxpayer will chip in a double payment to help Connecticut while struggling to meet an extra burden at home to meet the Federal child care and training targets. How about Kansas? Kansas has 2.5 million people. South Carolina has 3.5 million people. Despite having a million fewer people, Kansas gets $18 million more than South Carolina from Federal taxpayers over the next 3 years to run its welfare program. Mr. President, this unfairness has not fazed many of our governors. They want the cash and the control, whether or not the plan will work. I predict that the promises of reform will again prove false, but as before, I endorse the goals. In 1988, I voted to make it possible for States to draw down adequate funding for workfare programs and child care to really reform welfare. We have recently seen a few glimmers of success after that legislation, but only where investments have been made. Similarly, I have voted for a community works progress pilot program to allow communities and welfare recipients to benefit mutually from community improvement jobs. More importantly, I urge my colleagues to pay attention to the policy areas that are not called welfare, but which in reality, have huge, long-term effects on welfare rolls. Chief among these policy areas are education and job protection. For instance, over the past 20 years, high school dropouts have become more likely to end up on welfare. Overall, the welfare rate for young adults has risen slightly from 4 percent to 5 percent. However, among the high school dropouts, the rate has nearly doubled, from 9.7 to 17.1 percent. These particular high school dropouts are mostly women, since women and their dependent children make up the vast majority of welfare recipients. However, a similar economic decline has faced their male counterparts, who generally do not have dependent children who would trigger welfare eligibility. Earnings for black male high-school dropouts fell by half from 1973 to 1989. About one third of all American men aged 25-34 earn too little to raise a family of four out of poverty. And, not surprisingly from the perspective of poor women seeking a mate, poor young men and less than one third as likely to be married. In short, jobs have dried up for the high school dropout, marriage has become less likely than before and the children of their incomplete families are more likely to be on welfare at a lower benefit level. I urge my colleagues to take note of these facts--the importance of education and livable-wage jobs to preventing welfare dependency--as they work on the related issue of welfare reform. While we pass this reform bill on the Senate floor, recently passed cuts to education are headed for conference with the House. Just as States are taking the initiative to eliminate high school general-track education and replace it with tech prep programs that move graduates into better paying jobs, we are cutting back on the Federal tech prep program that provided leadership and the Carl Perkins vocational education program appropriations that have helped fund implementation. Just as data show that the economic split between college graduates and non-college graduates is widening, we are cutting back on Perkins loans, student incentive grants, and in budget reconciliation, college loans. In short, the data is telling us to go one way on education, but we are going the other way fast and bragging about welfare reform. Similarly, on trade we have unilaterally disarmed, and in manufacturing we refuse to invest. I have proposed a competitive trade policy, including a competitive restructuring of our tax policy, and have worked to invest in a stronger American manufacturing base. Mr. President, I do not brag about today's welfare reform legislation. In fact, my favorable vote today is largely an effort to protect the child care improvements I have worked for in the Senate bill as it goes to conference with a less favorable House bill. Furthermore, I support it in the hope that, with welfare off the table, my colleagues will look at the underlying problems that I have outlined and continue to work on improving access to jobs and education.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Commemorative Events Advisory Act, the purpose of which is to create a Presidential advisory commission tasked with reviewing the merit of proposed commemorative observances. Mr. President, we simply must find an alternative way to review and limit the hundreds of congressionally sponsored commemorative resolutions. These resolutions are intended to honor worthy causes by setting aside a particular day, week, month, or year as a time of special recognition. In principle, this is a noble idea. But, regrettably, in recent years our zeal for commemoratives has gotten entirely out of hand. During the 95th Congress, we had 57 commemoratives. In the 99th Congress, a high-water mark was reached when 275 commemoratives were passed. In the 100th, 101st, 102d, and 103d Congresses, the totals fell slightly. However, it is shocking to note that during each of these four Congresses, commemoratives accounted for over 30 percent of all public laws passed by Congress. There is a very tangible cost to this excess, beginning with the fact that the laborious process of enlisting cosponsors and passing commemorative bills have become a major drain on our time as well as on the time of our staffs. There is also a cost in trivializing the whole idea of commemorative observances. We have all noticed a kind of Gresham's law at work, with the proliferation of bad commemoratives driving out of circulation the truly worthy commemoratives. To put it bluntly, Mr. President, this bill is designed to save us from ourselves--to save us from good intentions run amok. The bill would create a President's Advisory Commission on National Commemorative Events, which would have the task of conducting an independent merit review of commemorative proposals. Congress would no longer pass commemorative resolutions. Instead, the proposed advisory commission would be charged with the sole function of reviewing proposals for national commemorative events making positive or negative recommendations to the President. This Presidential advisory commission is an idea whose time has come. It would streamline the process of considering proposals, while saving the Congress considerable time and resources. In addition, it would provide for a fair and impartial review of the hundreds of commemorative proposals submitted by a large and growing number of constituent groups. There are a number of differing projections comparing the relative costs of passing commemorative through Congress and through an independent commission. To be accurate, these calculations need to take full account of the staff time now devoted to handling commemoratives in Congress. Mr. President, I am well aware that commemoratives are both a curse and a blessing for Members of Congress. They are enormously time consuming. However, they are also perceived as an important vehicle for winning the favor of worthy causes and special interests. I myself sponsored an amendment to the 1994 crime bill to designate May 1, 1995, as Law Day, U.S.A., to honor our Nation's law enforcement professionals. However, I am confident of the merit of this Law Day commemorative and would be happy to subject it to independent review by the proposed advisory commission. Mr. President, I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this bill. We can best honor all our constituents not by passing commemorative after commemorative, but by applying ourselves to substantive legislation that will make a real difference in our constituent's lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have a related concern that I want to bring to my colleague's attention, should the conferees or any future deliberations determine that funding for the LPD-17 can be made available. As my colleagues may remember, the FY 93 Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended, and the Congress approved, the consolidation of all Department of Navy in service engineering support for Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance systems at the Navy facility in Charleston, South Carolina. In reorganizing to carry out this action, the Navy has developed a mission statement for this facility in Charleston, called NISE-EAST, identifying it as the lead facility for all engineering, analysis, design, testing, installing, upgrading, and training support for all shore based, mobile, and afloat Navy communications systems. I want to insure that should the conferees, or any future deliberations result in funding being made available for the LPD-17, that the NISE-East facility in Charleston be designated as the appropriate facility to perform in service engineering support for the radio communications systems associated with that class of vessels. Any attempt to divert that workloading elsewhere would be an unwarranted intrusion into internal workloading processes in the Navy, and would seriously undermine the Base Closure and Realignment process.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to call to the attention of my distinguished colleague, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, an issue that I know is of mutual interest. I note that our colleagues in the other body have included in the House Defense Appropriations Bill, funding for a new class of Amphibious Transport Dock ships, the so called LPD-17 class of Amphibious ships. In our own deliberations, while recognizing the need for replacing the aging Austin class of such ships, other priorities, and allocation constraints did not allow us to fund this vessel.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to revive the economy and restore our preeminence in manufacturing. During the cold war, this Nation willingly subordinated its economic interests in order to maintain the Western alliance against communism. Forty-five years of commitment and sacrifice paid off when the Berlin Wall collapsed and democracy triumphed over totalitarianism. Now we have entered a new era of global competition in which power and influence will be derived from economic strength, not through the barrel of a gun or the tip of a missile. This Nation now faces fierce competition for market share in the international economy. To compete in the global marketplace, we must devote the same degree of commitment and sacrifice to restoring our economic strength as we devoted to the cold war. [[Page S 12230]] At the beginning of the cold war, President Truman had the vision and foresight to create the institutions that would unify the West and stand as a bulwark for freedom. To coordinate policy, the National Security Council would serve as the broker between the Departments of State and Defense. Now in the post-cold war era where economic competition is preeminent, we need to have the same coordination as our economic policy. That is why this legislation creates an Economic Security Council to set the course for U.S. economic policy. Mr. President, restoring our economic strength will also require that we rethink the failed policies of the past. Last week, the last American manufacturer of television sets was sold to South Korea's LG Industries. The sale was the culmination of two decades of failed trade policy. To no avail, Zenith tried to use our anti-dumping laws to half the predatory pricing by their competition. They tried to use the antitrust laws and faced the unseemly specter of the Justice Department appearing on behalf of the foreign manufacturer. Despite promising developments in high definition television, Zenith succumbed after 6 straight years of losses. Now HDTV will be produced by the Koreans. In this new era of economic competition, we can no longer afford to sit idly by while American industry withers under the relentless assault of foreign predatory trade practices. Mr. President, a cost structure revolution has taken place in the international marketplace. In industry after industry, markets have been cartelized. By controlling distribution networks and reaping monopoly rewards in home markets, foreign companies have engaged in relentless dumping into our market. By holding down their fixed costs, these companies have been driving American companies out of business. To attack these predatory trade practices, this bill class on us to improve our antidumping laws to prevent the circumvention of dumping orders and to make it easer for industries to prevail in threat cases. it also updates the enforcement of the antitrust laws. The antitrust laws were written to prevent the Carnegies, Morgans and Mellons from dominating the economy. In a global economy, the concentration of economic power stretches across borders. My bill amended the antitrust laws to enable U.S. companies to attack the anti-competitive practices that keep them out of foreign markets. Mr. President, not all the problems that afflict our economy are the product of foreign competition. Many of our wounds are self-inflicted. Our securities laws need to be updated to emphasize the creation of patient capital--long-term shareholders who will stick with a company over the long haul. With that in mind, my bill calls for the elimination of quarterly reporting requirements which force U.S. companies to focus on short-term investments to enhance shareholder value rather than long-term investment to improve competitiveness. Furthermore, this bill attacks the enemy within--those former U.S. Government officials who turn around and represent foreign interests at the expense of U.S. workers. As a remedy, this bill places a 5-year ban on lobbying by former officials who work for foreign interests. And to jumpstart research and development spending which now lags behind our competitors, the bill reestablishes the permanent research and development tax credit. It is paid for by imposing an import surcharge to eliminate our enormous trade deficits. Finally, I need to say a word about reorganization of Government. Some have come to Washington with one goal in mind--to tear down the Government. Our mission should not be to tear it down but to make it work. For example, there are those who advocate eliminating the Commerce Department. But in this new era of global competition, that would be the same as eliminating the Department of Defense during the cold war. Instead of destroying the Commerce Department, we should be strengthening the Department and turn it into a real Department of Trade and Industry. We should move the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation into the Department to provide exporters with one-stop shopping. This would create a powerful export promotion agency to compete with the economic powerhouses on the Pacific rim. Mr. President, for 20 years real wages have stagnated in America. We have lost 2 million manufacturing jobs and lost an edge in critical technologies. Once the land of opportunity, America is now a country with the worst income distribution in the industrial world. Unless we wake up from our economic daydream, we will find ourselves a two-tiered society divided between rich and poor. Let's go to work to rebuild our economy and renew the American dream. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I support this 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 only be heritage and tradition ad not part of our future. The United States relies on ocean transportation for international trade purposes, and also to protect our national security interests. 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 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 the promise that we would supply them, provided that the Department of Defense (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. 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.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to an insightful speech recently delivered by Anthony Harrigan, counselor of the United States Business and Industrial Council Education Foundation, at a June conference at the University of Colorado. Mr. President, this is a speech which every Senator should study and memorize. In great detail, Tony outlines the economic crisis that America faces in this day of global competition. All too often, America focuses on the short term--next quarter's profit, next year's tax rate, minute changes in the interest rate. Our competition, notably Japan and other Eastern economies, does business differently. They look to the long term. Instead of vilifying the Government, they use and work with the Government to grab global market share. And while they overtly kowtow to the mantra of free trade, they work to trade in an unfree manner that is in the best interest of their countries. Mr. President, Tony Harrigan exposes the Western myth of free trade. If we continue to go down the road offered by this dream, we will continue to lose and our standard of living will continue to decline. As Mr. Harrigan explains, America will end up only an industrial shell of its former self. Instead of controlling our destiny, we will depend on others and lose our economic sovereignty. Mr. President, let us not allow the new world order to destroy the freedoms that we cherish. To that end, I urge all my colleagues to read this speech. I ask that the text be reprinted in the Record. The speech follows: The Economic Crisis of the First World the fear of a post-constitutional america (By Anthony Harrigan) Ladies and Gentlemen: When the Soviet Union imploded, the nations of the First World--the United States among them-- envisioned smooth sailing into the 21st century. There was much talk of a huge ``peace dividend.'' This optimistic vision of what lay ahead has been severely eroded, if not shattered, by a variety of developments, including strife in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and even within the Russian Federation. At the same time there have been ominous economic problems, conflicts and challenges--the near economic wars, the on-going economic deterioration of Africa, crushing economic problems within the former Soviet Union, the economic stagnation of much of Western Europe, the Mexican debt crisis, high unemployment in Britain, France, and other allied nations, and deindustrialization and underemployment in the United States. Indeed there are several crises facing the First World, including a moral crisis and a threatening crisis with rogue states with ambitious military agendas that aim at becoming nuclear armed states. Today, let us consider the economic crisis of the First World. In the United States, tremendous attention is devoted to economic issues, to topical issues, that is--tax and interest rates and monthly and quarterly changes in the trade deficit, housing starts, and similar matters. And a superficial prosperity in the United States causes us to divert attention from the long-range, deeper problems and threats. It is important to remember that in 1928 economists, and political and business leaders didn't consider the possibility that America was on the brink of a economic collapse that would produce a deep depression until America entered World War II. Have we a clearer vision today? [[Page S 11795]] Here and there one finds students of the world economy who warn of another enormous economic crisis with grim implication for our First World societies and political institutions. One of these far-sighted economic observers is Sir James Goldsmith, the Franco-British financier. Two years ago, he began to voice ominous warnings. He said that in the case of Western Europe, with some 20 percent unemployment, ``the critical mass is here for implosion and social upheaval and political instability on a global scale.'' He predicted that the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 will pale into insignificance when compared to this upheaval. And the situation in Western Europe has worsened since he issued that warning. Now the United States hasn't this kind of unemployment problem, except in our inner cities. The overall employment rate for the nation as a whole has risen a bit but under- employment has risen on a colossal scale. Millions of Americans have jobs that don't provide sufficient income to support a family--even with husband and wife working. And many of these millions don't have the benefits associated with the good jobs that existed in the decades after World War II. Dr. Edward M. Lutwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington has analyzed this problem. Dr. Lutwak has observed: ``The problem in question is the unprecedented sense of personal economic insecurity that has rather suddenly become the central phenomenon of life in America, not only for the notoriously endangered species of corporate middle managers, prime targets of today's fashionable downsizing and re-engineering, but for virtually all working Americans except tenured civil servants--whose security is duly resented.'' The reasons for the economic insecurity felt by millions of Americans are numerous and complex. A key element is exploding technology which has made many jobs as out of date as buggy-making. And this has made much employment temporary in nature, thereby endangering working people and their families who don't have advanced technical skills or the education to obtain such. But there are other powerful forces at work; and these forces have a tremendous bearing on Europeans as well as Americans. These forces cause the displacement of European and American-made goods, wipe our jobs on both sides of the Atlantic, and produce the most terrible anxieties, as well as threatening, as Kevin Phillips and written, to cause the descent of Europe and North America into Third World status. It is important to reflect on the words of Sir James Goldsmith. In an article published in The Washington Times, November 27, Sir James said: ``During the past few years 4 billion people have suddenly entered the world economy. They include the populations of China, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh and the countries that were part of the Soviet empire, among others. These populations are growing fast. In 35 years, that 4 billion is forecast to expand to more than 6.5 billion. The nations where those 4 billion live have very high levels of unemployment and those people who do find jobs offer their labor for a tiny fraction of the pay earned by workers in the developed world. That means that new entrants into the world economy are in direct competition with the work forces of developed countries.'' This is a situation unprecedented in the history of the older industrial countries, meaning the countries of the West. And the industrial production of the new industrial or industrializing countries, China, for example, is directed in large measure at capturing the domestic markets of the Western countries and, thereby, acquiring hard Western currencies for their own purposes--for a massive military buildup in the case of China. Simultaneously, therefore, the Western countries are losing their internal markets on which their peoples depend and are financing new military challenges. Europeans, chiefly the French, are increasingly mindful of this threat. But the United States is fixated on Third World countries as trading partners, not as a developing military threat. This kind of fixation is nothing new. A decade ago, the great business interests of the United States were desperate and determined to sell the most advanced technological equipment to the Soviet Union-- products such as super-computers and ball bearings for missile installations. The U.S. Department of Commerce made every effort to push such sales, despite the strategic implications of such sales. Blindness to the Crisis of the First World could cause us to descend precipitously along the road to instability and collapse. Sir James Goldsmith is not alone in sounding the alarm. There are other keen observers of the world scene who share Sir James's concerns. One of these is Arnaud de Borchgrave, the Belgian-born writer and editor, who has written in warning: ``By putting one's ear to the rail, one can hear the distant rumble of social upheaval.'' He adds: ``Jobs are a global crisis. The 24 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations--the world's wealthiest--now have a mind-numbing 35 million on the dole.'' He added: ``No one knows what the critical mass of unemployment is.'' He wrote: ``But when the legions of Europe out of work realize that no one seems to have an answer to the shed-jobs- to-cut-costs dilemma, the ingredients for a continent-wide social explosion will be in place. This is now known as the unacceptable force of capitalism.'' He reported that 50 percent of Europe's unemployed have been made to feel unwanted for a year or longer. In Europe there is anger and unrest associated with the unemployment. If one reads the London Financial Times, one gets an idea of the severity of the problems from Spain to Ireland and from Italy to Scandinavia. As European jobs are exported to Asia (one-third of Europe's steel comes from the Far East), powerful populist movements are growing--movements which insist on national identity, control of national borders against a flood of migrants and imported goods. These movements are strenuously opposed to what they see as economic and cultural homogenization which would level incomes worldwide for the benefit of the financial interests. On neither side of the Atlantic is there sufficient appreciation of the growing anger. And many commentators blithely ignore the problem. They look at the underlying economic problem in strictly economic terms, dismissing the human dimension. For example, an editor of Kiplinger's Letter, has asserted that the U.S. is reindustrializing, not deindustrialzing, observing that U.S. factories are producing goods more efficiently--more goods with fewer people. But that's precisely the point. Scores of thousands have been thrown out of work in the name of efficiency and global competition. The economic commentators are thinking of society in terms of the cost-price ratio, not the terms of people. Part of the problem is that so many economic commentators persist in employing euphemisms for very serious societal problems. One of the favorite euphemisms is ``rationalizing'' of business. This is how an important British press voice referred to the layoff of 6,500 workers by the Rolls-Royce company in Scotland. It is doubtful that it makes a worker and his family happier or more accepting if he is told that his livelihood is being ``rationalized'' out of existence, especially if the work is being shifted to Malaysia or another Far Eastern country. The Rolls-Royce announcement was greeted with ``anger and dismay in Scotland.'' Did you note, by the way, at the time of the Kobe earthquake that among the damaged facilities was Caterpillar's tractor factory. The jobs at Kobe were exported from Peoria, Illinois. ``Down-sizing'' is another euphemism. In the last few years, IBM, Xerox, and many other industrial giants have been down-sized, with scores of thousands of highly skilled workers--blue collar, white collar, and managerial--laid off. What's happening, in fact, is that the United States is being downsized. For generations, young Americans have been taught the virtues of self-sufficiency, hard work, cooperation, and loyalty. But these virtues are dismissed in an era of ``rationalization'' and ``down-sizing.'' They don't prevent giant enterprises from shipping jobs abroad. And national legislators seem blind to the problem or to the growing public anger at the abandonment of hard-working citizens, the type who made America. Euphemisms in the economic areas mask deeply disturbing phenomena. The March 31 issue of the Forward pointed this out with great clarity. A column in that newspaper noted: ``If an American company closes a plant here and ships its equipment to China, that will be called an `export.' It will be an `export' that will not add, but will subtract, jobs from America.'' ``Another case: Component parts from America will be shipped to Mexico, to be assembled there and sold exclusively, by law, in America. The shipments in Mexico will be listed as an `export,' although nothing was exported except American jobs that once assembled the product here.'' ``Or another case: Component parts for a dishwasher or a car are imported from Third World countries. The labor in the parts makes up 80 percent of the labor in the completed product. When sold to the elite of some Third World country, the value of the finished product is listed as an `export.' '' ``And so we list as exports the exports of jobs, the export of products we imported, the export of products that are never sold to another country. We figment these `exports' to fictitious `emerging markets' to conceal the fact that we are moving jobs out of America to other countries where manufacturers are using cheap--often child and slave--labor to make things, carrying the labels of American companies, to be sold in America.'' The failure of mainstream European leaders to understand this anger is leading to political fragmentation. There is evidence of a growing divide in Europe. The Financial Times says this was reflected in the vote on the Maastricht Treaty, with the professional middle class in favor and ``two thirds of working people against it.'' The glue that held together the center-right parties is dissolving, in large part ``under the impact of European integration and the worldwide move towards free trade,'' said the Times. The opponents of globalism and economic homogenization surely will become a powerful force on both sides of the Atlantic. The Perot movement of 1992 was an indicator of coming change. Much of the Perot message had to do with betrayal of the economic interests of ordinary Americans, those whom a writer for Fortune magazine referred to (February, 1995) as ``the have- less half of the middle class.'' Americans and Europeans soon may begin to understand the price of the transnational ``free market,'' the globalist vision of those who are contemptuous of the losers in their [[Page S 11796]] countries' populations and who seek the protection of the nations where they are headquartered but who disavow any responsibility to the interests of their nations. Where this leads one can't predict, but one recognizes a loss of living standard expectations and expectations on the part of many millions who are squeezed out in the game of globalist competition. These are citizens who are shoved to the margins, irrespective of the promises of Western democratic government. The prospects are dismal for many Americans and Europeans even as some elements in their nations profit enormously from globalism. In our time, greed overwhelms patriotism, as evidenced in the opposition to trade policies which would safeguard the economic well-being of millions of ordinary Americans who have lost or will lose their jobs. Something is very wrong when a company decides to maintain only its head office and, possibly, its sale force in its home country, and transfers production to low wage countries. I submit it's immoral to eliminate one's national work force and transfer production abroad. The argument has been that the losses will be made up in advance products. But, as Sir James Goldsmith has noted, when the French signed a $2.1 billion contract with South Korea for high speed trains, it produced only 800 jobs in France. More and more aircraft contracts with Asian countries mean shifting large parts of the production process to those countries. The believers in the theology of total free trade seek a worldwide market in goods, services, capital, and yes, labor. That means the hollowing out of American manufacturing enterprises. it means that U.S. workers have to compete with Chinese workers who earn twenty cents an hour. The focus of the major financial interests is not on the United States, the American economy, or the needs of the American people. Indicative of this lack of focus, of an alternative focus, was a symposium held last May in China under the auspices of the International Herald Tribune, which is jointly owned by The New York Times and The Washington Post. The paper, to use its language, invited to China, a ``limited number of largest multinational corporations with a stake in the future of the Chinese economy.'' It would be interesting to know the names of these multinational corporations, which are headquartered in the United States, where their investments are being made, and especially, how much is being invested in China and other Asian countries and how much in the U.S. Finally, what percentage of their goods manufactured abroad are sold in the American market? This is information that the American people need to know, which Congress is not trying to obtain for them. The American people have paid a hellish price for this focus on the economic future of countries such as China, which are earning huge profits from penetrating the U.S. domestic market in order to challenge the United States. The price is not only in lost American jobs but stagnated communities, deteriorated wages, the drying up of small businesses, and dependence on export markets, meaning dependence on foreign regimes and their financial maneuvers. The greatest loss, of course, is America's economic sovereignty. Those who defend globalization, despite these losses, argue that the United States can more than make up for them by training unskilled workers. But this training is not the answer to the problem of unemployment in Europe, or unemployment in the United States--the proliferation, that is, of jobs that don't pay enough to provide even a minimal standard of living. Even The Economist magazine, which is an ardent supporter of globalization, recognizes that ``wages at the bottom are lower in America'' than in Europe. And it admits that ``training can even be the royal road to ruin.'' Those interested in so-called ``rationalizing'' of jobs can gain more advantage by eliminating jobs where there is demarcating of jobs based on skills rather than establishing frequent, costly job training programs. And the presentation of job training as the magic bullet ignores the fact that employers prefer younger, supposedly more flexible workers than middle aged workers who have lost their jobs through corporate ``downsizing.'' In any case, what are so-called redundant workers to be trained for? Our global competitors aren't without skilled workers or brains. It is politically fashionable to speak of empowering Americans--meaning restoring them to a condition of individual responsibility and local control--both worthy objectives. But the most important empowerment involves both the restoration of their family values, moral values in the public environment, and economic empowerment. Over 15 years, they have lost economic power enjoyed by previous generations of Americans. There are many who profess to believe in democratic principles and a moral approach to the organization of American society but who show disdain for the ordinary American. An example of this was an article by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen (February 2) in which he lambasted popular opposition to the $40 billion Mexican bailout. He declared that the people ``aren't always wise.'' To be sure, it was their money, their credit, which was on the line. And so it is with the grand globalist economic schemes. That ordinary Americans suffer in the process seems to be of little concern to those who predict vast opportunities in so-called emerging markets such as China. But there's no reason to believe that the American people, apart from Wall Street investors, stand to benefit from a huge trade deficit with China. The dark scenario I present here is not simply one person's vision. A Shell International Petroleum Co. economist, Peter Kassler, has presented a scenario called ``Barricades'' which envisions social and economic chaos under the GATT trade regime, with unrelenting jobs cuts and downward pressure on wages in industrial countries. Business Week (December 19, 1994) said that: ``Potent opposition is growing against the politicians who would further weaken a nation's power to set its economic course.'' It reported on the so-called ``anxious class'' on both sides of the Atlantic, noting that in Britain wages are stagnating and that nearly 90 percent of new jobs in the U.K. are part-time. In France, Sir James Goldsmith says hard-nosed corporations press for lower wages at home or ``rush to the Third World to exploit cheap labor.'' The conditions described here constitute the so-called New World Order, the transnational world order. This New World Order already has played havoc with the lives of millions of Americans and Europeans. The existence of a $150 billion trade deficit with Asia--for the United States, that is, is a feature of the New World Order and derives from the economic priorities of those who favor the transnational outlook. But this New World Order may go the way of other new world orders in the 20th century--the socialist, communist, and Nazi new world orders. And the struggle over the latest New World order will focus on a variety of questions, involving what one wrote (Washington Post, January 29, 1995) referred to as ``intertwining forms of governance, ideology, cultural life, and the protection and distribution of goods''--and, I would add, morality. As a people, as a civilization on both sides of the Atlantic, we have not found our way through this thicket of issues, forces, and problems. I suspect that we haven't a great deal of time to repair the fabric of our civilization and also meet the economic challenges it faces, as well as deal with the internal stresses and anxieties--and anger-- provoked by economic policies and tendencies. Business Week, a certifiable establishment journal, asserted (December 19, 1994) that if we don't find our way that ``There could be hell to pay,'' a logical conclusion. If Americans and Europeans, the working people, don't get the rewards they believe they deserve, that their countries' striving over generations seemed to ensure, the result will be strife, revolution, that is, in one form or another. The anxiety level is rising, and if the standard of living is whittled away by runaway globalist policies, the backlash will be like nothing we have seen in the post-World War II history of the North Atlantic nations. What form it will take is unclear at this time. But it surely will occur. Precisely how the economic crisis will impact society in moral terms also remains in the realm of the unknown. One thing is certain: The Atlantic countries will not simply accommodate themselves to diminished expectations and diminished results. And there will be a massive vote of no-confidence in the political and cultural leadership elites in the West who have steered us into decline, or who have been indifferent to the dangers and tolerated decline. Dr. Winifred McClay, an historian at Tulane University, has written that need exists for a ``consolidated or nationalized political and economic order.'' Such an order would overcome the establishment notion that national sovereignty and economic independence are things of the past. It would put public policy in a new moral framework, a framework of respect for all Americans and American interests. How do we achieve a new nationalist, as opposed to a globalist, economic policy? The answer could be the subject of many lectures. But I submit that the essential first step is to defang the transnational of multi-national companies, the money power that increasingly holds U.S. policy and the American people in thrall. And how do we go about defanging them? By restricting their operations, placing limits on those who are headquartered in the United States and seek the protection of the United States while rejecting any special loyalty to America. If they shift their manufacturing operations to low-wage Third World countries in order to sell their slave wage-made goods in the American market, then let them be subject to penalties. In other words, we strike at their profits. And the foreign-headquartered multinationals would be subjected to the same barriers employed by the Japanese when the latter protect their national economic interest. There is nothing radical about such an approach. It is what our great-grandfathers supported when the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was written into law to block the operations of the monopolistic domestic cartels of the late 19th century. And I submit that the new policies of limitation would have the same moral purpose as the Sherman Act, which was passed to protect ordinary Americans from exploitation. As a traditional conservative I regard problems of moral decline and economic threat as two faces of the same coin. I believe that in recent years, as a result of the emergence and power of the transnational corporations and the transnational globalist [[Page S 11797]] international organizations, that we have departed from the ways prescribed by our forebears in the U.S. Constitution and from their moral instructions as evidenced in the Preamble to the Constitution with its dedication of our system of government to the promotion of the general welfare. We need a new emphasis upon virtue, authentic justice, recognition of shared experience and shared devotion to the common good--all that America is about, as our Founding Fathers ordained in the Constitution. And as a traditional conservative, who fears a post-constitutional America, I look for wisdom and understanding wherever I can find it--even in what may seem the most unlikely sources. I found evidence of it in a statement by former Gov. Jerry Brown of California, not someone I have quoted favorably before. Interviewed by Chronicles magazine, a conservative intellectual journal, he said we: ``need enrichment of the community and real deconstruction of the workings of the global economy, global institutions--the central banks, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Bank, the multinational companies--and of the way in which our lives are being embedded in a runaway, large-scale corporate, global culture that is undemocratic, inhuman, and destructive.'' The late Russell Kirk, the great conservative thinker who spoke at these institutes for so many years, could have written these words. They are in the spirit of Edmund Burke and the Founding Fathers, and they provide us with goals for the moral recovery, community strengthening, and economic safeguarding of the American people and nation. If we embrace this understanding, adopt this new direction for our national affairs, and wake to the need for a restoration of the moral virtue that characterized our republic and our civilization in the past, we should be able to overcome all the challenges and reinvigorate the public and private order built upon our priceless heritage in the Western world.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember and thank Lane Kirkland, a South Carolina favorite son who fought for American workers and jobs as one of the Nation's key labor leaders. After more than 50 years of union service, including the last 16 years as president of the AFL-CIO, Lane Kirkland retired Tuesday. Tomorrow's generation can learn much from Lane. Instead of today's pop morality tuned to getting a soundbite on the nightly news, Lane has lived a life dedicated to the principle that working people should work together to improve their lot in life, to fight for justice, to strive for dignity and to help all. Lane Kirkland's accomplishments as head of the AFL-CIO should serve as a model for public service. He was one of the Nation's first leaders to recognize the financial devastation that Reaganomics would wreak on our economy when he described Reagan's economic plans as a ``high-risk gamble with the lives of working people.'' And when the embattled Solidarity trade union faced an uphill battle in Poland, Lane Kirkland recognized what was at stake and provided a lifeline that kept Solidarity alive. In fact, Lane's lifelong fight to promote democracy led to the fall of the Berlin Wall. No one could put it better than editorialists who wrote in Wednesday's Detroit News: When the trade union Solidarity bravely emerged in the early 1980's to fight the Polish communist regime, Mr. Kirkland and other labor officials smuggled money, printing presses and even electronic equipment to keep the fledgling anti-communist movement alive. . . . When it came to confronting the greatest security threat this country has ever faced, Mr. Kirkland did not flinch. He fought communism and supported fledgling democratic movements that contributed to the demise of many totalitarian regimes. For that effort, he deserves everyone's appreciation. Mr. President, Lane Kirkland was born and grew up in Camden, S.C. In 1942--the same year I graduated from the Citadel--he graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. In World War II, he served as a deck officer on a merchant marine vessel that carried ammunition. After he graduated from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in 1948, he joined the AFL research staff. And in 1979, after moving up the ranks, he became president of the AFL-CIO. Mr. President, Lane Kirkland's career is a striking parallel to America in this, the American century. He fought overseas to preserve our freedom. He won. He fought at home to make the American dream available to all of us. And he won. Finally, he fought to end the cold war and give others the access to the freedom that we cherish. Again, he won. All of us as Americans have reason to be proud that Lane Kirkland is one of us. Those of us from South Carolina, however, have the privilege of claiming him as one of ours. Mr. President, I appreciate Lane's friendship over the years and wish him and Irena all the best.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to inform the Senate that I am losing one of my most dedicated and trusted staffers to retirement--Martha Payne of Columbia, SC. At the same time, I am happy for Martha and her family because she is going to have a whale of a time in what will be her best years ever. Since 1960 when she started working with me in the Governor's office, Martha has stood with me through thick and thin. Within months, her competence and commitment made her indispensable. At the end of my service as Governor when Senator Olin Johnston gave me a classic lesson in politics, I returned to Charleston to practice law and Martha assumed a position as manager of our State municipal association. Martha and I never lost contact. I relied upon her to keep me advised on happenings in State and municipal government, and as a conduit to old, and more importantly, new friendships. In 1965 when I decided to again seek election to this august body, the first person I asked to join my campaign was Martha Payne. Martha was the glue that held a fragile and inexperienced campaign together. She brilliantly bridged the gap between past Hollings supporters and thousands of new ones who rallied to our undermanned but committed cause. The victory we achieved in 1966 and all the victories in the 29 years since have, in no small measure, been Martha's victories. Since that victorious 1966 Senate campaign, Martha served as my office organizer. She has been an office manager and staff assistant in Columbia. Day after day, she has helped thousands of people throughout South Carolina. Her energy and dedication to serving our people, our State, and our country has made my job easier and our successes easier to accomplish. Through the many long and difficult days which saw some seek a safer haven elsewhere, Martha never waivered. She has always been there, has been supportive, and has been a true friend. Martha and her husband Rob first moved to Columbia from Monroe, NC, in 1950. They are the proud parents of three children--Rob Jr., a psychiatrist in Charleston Michael, a lawyer in Washington, DC; and Nancy, a teacher in Charleston--and grandparents of four. She and Rob will celebrate their 50th anniversary next May. Mr. President, I often think of Martha as South Carolina's living Rolodex. She is a library of knowledge and information. Perhaps the only thing more impressive than the number of South Carolinians she knows is the information she knows about them--their parents, grandparents, and children. In fact, Martha Payne, more than anyone I can think of, understands the relationships that make South Carolina a big, big family. Mr. President, we in South Carolina owe Martha Payne a huge debt of gratitude. It is a debt that I never will be able to repay. But what I can do is offer heartfelt appreciation for a job well done and my sincerest thanks for the 35 years of love, friendship, loyalty, and support. I wish her and Rob well in their years to come.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President I call the attention of my colleagues to an educational matter that requires continued attention. Americans serving in the armed services who are stationed overseas usually depend on Department of Defense Dependents Schools to educate their children. It has been a matter of concern that these overseas schools do not provide the same level of educational services as schools on military installations in the United States. I ask to have printed in the Record the executive summary of a recent study providing hard numbers substantiating this concern. I hope Senators will consider the findings of this study as we draw down forces in Europe and as we provide for an appropriate quality of life for members of our Armed Forces stationed overseas. The Executive summary follows: DoDDS--A Staffing Dilemma executive summary The process of staffing the Department of Defense Dependents Schools has reached a point where it needs to be reviewed. The schools are staffed in the classical, enrollment-based manner which serves as a model for the larger school districts. Applying this method to DoDDS, while giving a favorable appearance on a system-wide basis, does not address the demographics of DoDDS with its many small and medium- sized schools located far apart and in isolated locations. This briefing document describes and compares the configuration of the schools in the United States and in DoDDS-Europe. It shows how the sizes of the schools in the United States vary in enrollment patterns from those in DoDDS-E. A sampling of programs and services found in Section 6 schools is included. These schools are for military dependents located on military installations in the United States, and are supervised by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), the same Activity which supervises DoDDS. The Section 6 schools provide a full range of educational programs. DoDDS, because of its staffing model is enrollment-ratio- driven, will not be able to provide the same programs or services to the students attending its schools as those attending the Section 6 schools. This staffing model needs to be altered to accommodate the unique character of DoDDS. DoDDS must staff its schools in a manner guaranteed to maintain its current level of excellence. This paper recommends that a staffing freeze be put in place, retaining the current staff, except for those locations where the schools are closing or enrollment is projected to drop sharply based upon next school year's enrollment data. The retention of this level of staffing is estimated to require 400 positions DoDDS-E wide. Since there will be a cut in staffing, this means that 400 fewer positions would be cut. At a work-year rate of $60,000 each, this would amount to a dollar cost of $24,000,000. For the staffing in the coming years, DoDDS has stated that a Staffing Task Force has been established to develop new staffing criteria. Until this Task Force reports its findings and recommendations, all staffing actions should be frozen at present levels, then modified using the guidance developed by the Task Force. Assuming that this Task Force will develop a staffing model based upon program needs, this action is strongly recommended. The educational services delivered by DoDDS are an integral part of the Quality of Life Program as well as of Force Readiness. It is essential that what needs to be done to maintain the current high standard be done. Until the end of the current school year, SY 94-95, the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) has provided the educational services and programs of a premier school system. DoDDS has the potential and resources to be a truly world- class school system--the standard bearer of the United States in the arena of global education. As evidenced by the DoDDS Strategic Plan promulgated by Dr. Lillian Gonzalez, Director of DoDDS, DoDDS has made a determined commitment in this direction. However, will the current proposed staffing reductions allow DoDDS to reach this serious goal? As part of its ``rightsizing'' goal, DoDDS-Europe is eliminating over 900 positions. Most of these positions will be at the school level. The core of DoDDS' staffing planning is its concept of the ``super teacher,'' a concept based on the belief that the classroom teachers can absorb program cuts back into their basic classroom instruction. In other words, DoDDS is relying on the ``super teacher'' to cover or provide all the services and programs which have been eliminated by the cuts in staffing. DoDDS teachers are arguably a cut above their stateside counterparts, but to demand that they fulfill these expectations on a regular basis is unrealistic--the average teacher doesn't have the skills to: maintain a full-scale modern computerized media center (library); provide quality curricular offerings in physical education, music, and art; conduct all remedial assistance for students who would ordinarily be provided with special help through Reading Improvement Specialists (RIS) and Compensatory Education Specialists (Comp Ed); mainstream and assist students in need of English as a Second Language (ESL); be ready to apply first aid and administer medication or diagnostic assistance for students with health needs (school nurse); and, assess and administer help to students who qualify for learning impairment assistance (Special Education for the Learning Impaired, teachers--SPED) or for school-wide enrichment (SWEP, a.k.a. TAG--talented and gifted, teachers). While most classroom teachers have some skill in these areas, they are not specialists in these areas--to assume or assert that they are simply will not create the skills. Saying it doesn't make it so--no matter how often it is said. Next year DoDDS schools will have fewer specialists, a higher Pupil Teacher Ration (PTR), and fewer options for students, if the cuts now proposed and currently being implemented are allowed to stand. This briefing paper will present statistics on the DoDDS Mediterranean (Med) district and DoDDS-Europe (DoDDS-E) as a whole. We have the necessary documentation on the schools in this district because the Overseas Federation of Teachers is the exclusive bargaining agent for the teachers in these schools. DoDDS Med District represents approximately 1/6 of the enrollment of the odds-E student enrollment. Our proposal, therefore, is based on projecting our data on a 1:6 ratio, so that we can reach a conclusion on what is needed for all of DoDDS-Europe We point out that even though the Med district is unique in geographic terms (most of the schools are located on islands and peninsulas), it can still be used a ``bellwether'' for the other schools and DoDDS-E Districts. As the drawdown in northern Europe continues the school distributions in England, the Benelux, and Germany are going to look more and more like those in the Med District in terms of size and isolation by geographic distance. What programs do American schools commonly have now? To obtain pertinent information, we looked at a random sampling of three school systems servicing American military dependents in the United States--the Section 6 Schools--which are managed by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). DoDEA is also the supervisory activity of the DoDDS schools and is also directed by Dr. Lillian Gonzalez. These schools range in size from 262 students to 768 students. From a telephonic survey conducted on May 16-18, 1995, the information (enrollment data) gleaned is presented on Table 2, see Appendix no. 7. In the Section 6 Schools surveyed, full services and programs are available to students in the elementary schools. Table 3, Appendix no. 8, shows the comparison of services available to students in schools of various sizes in DoDDS-E and to students in Section 6 Schools. Here it is quite evident that the majority (61.5%) of the DoDDS-E elementary schools do not enjoy the same program benefits as the students attending the Section 6 Schools. This condition is unacceptable. DoDDS has attempted to retain some services and/or programs that fall below its staffing criteria by staffing ``half- teachers,'' Combining ``halves'' does not benefit any program--it simply assumes that one teacher will do two full jobs in half the time and does not recognize the implied reduction in quality that must result. In the Med District, six full-time librarian positions were cut to half-time positions; three full-time art positions were cut to half- time. An example of this is the situation at Vicenza Elementary School. This school has an enrollment and projected enrollment of slightly under 50 students in grades 1-6. The total enrollment tops 500 with the inclusion of pre-school and kindergarten but those students are not included when applying the DoDDS staffing standards for most of the DoDDS specialists. At Vicenza, the high school media specialist--highly trained in the new computer-run library / media center--is cut for next year to a half-teacher. The elementary art teacher-who runs an outstanding DoDDS art program, recognized this year by the Advisory Council on Dependents Education (ACDE)-is also cut for next year to a half teacher. The principals of the high school and elementary school are pooling their work year slots to create a full teacher, who will have to spend half a day in the high school media center and half a day teaching elementary school art classes. Will services be equal to current levels? No. Without a doubt next year both programs will not have the same quality of education that is now provided. The National Profile (Table 94), Appendix no. 3. shows for elementary schools in the United States that the majority or 53% are in the range of 400+ student enrollment; for the unit schools (K-12) in the United States, the majority or 58% are in the range of 200+ student enrollment; and for high schools in the United States the majority or 53.5% are in the range of 500+ student enrollment. The current practice in the United States is to keep elementary schools to a medium size, but to consolidate them if they get too small. For high schools, the standard practice is to consolidate. Consolidation of secondary schools (high schools) allows for larger staff and more electives and advanced course options for students--a depth and breadth of offerings not available in smaller secondary schools. The Section 6 Schools generally follow the same stafing pattern as that in the United States. See Appendix No. 7. Table of school enrollments for the sampled Section 6 Schools. See below:

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember a true friend and South Carolina patriot--Francis M. Hipp. Last week at age 84, my friend and colleague passed away in Greenville. Francis Hipp, a native of Newberry, and his brothers took over Liberty Life Insurance Co. from their father in 1943. Over the next three decades, he pushed the company, now named Liberty Corp., to spectacular business heights as it blossomed into a major insurer and broadcaster. But the innovative and intelligent way that Francis ran his company is not what I most remember him for. That memory is reserved for the kind, caring way that he volunteered to help his State. Francis Hipp was a civic leader extraordinare. He played a key role in moving South Carolina from a agricultural and textile State into a diversified national and international business powerhouse. In 1959 when I became Governor, I appointed Francis to head the newly reorganized State Development Board. Under his leadership, Francis jump-started economic growth in the Palmetto State. Francis Hipp is the reason for today's prosperity in South Carolina. What we needed in the early 1960's was a successful businessman who could talk to successful businessmen. Francis traveled tirelessly telling the South Carolina story. He brought investment. He brought industry. He brought the jobs. Mr. President, without the devotion, hard work and caring of Francis Hipp, South Carolina would not have today's successful business environment. It is with a profound sense of loss that we mourn his passing. With Francis' death, South Carolina has lost its greatest civic leader.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one of the greatest joys of being a U.S. Senator is the opportunity to work with the brightest, most talented young people in the country. Inevitably, it is [[Page S 11038]] with a mixed sense of sadness and pride that one watches them mature and then move on to the next aspect of their career. That certainly describes my feelings today as my upstate director, Ben Alexander, leaves to go to law school. There are quite a few things that anyone who has any contact with Ben will ascertain immediately--he is smart, he is conscientious, he is tireless, and he is relentlessly good natured. If one talks to Ben a little longer, one will find that he has a voluminous knowledge of South Carolina's upstate. He can tell you the economic statistics, election results, business prospects and wedding announcements for every town in 10 counties. And he is just as proficient at expediting a Social Security case as helping industry and government build the infrastructure necessary to a healthy business climate. In addition, he began an intern program that has been a boon to both my office and the many fine universities found in the upstate. In short, Ben can do it all and do it all well. Despite all this obvious talents, I had some reservations about giving a 22-year-old primary responsibility for the most populous area of the State when he began nearly 7 years ago. On my first visit to the Greenville area after Ben had taken over, he picked me up at the airport and proceeded to reenforce all my worst fears by getting lost. Well, we eventually got where we were going and I later learned that Ben was famous for his hard work but infamous for his sense of direction. But there turned out to be no need to worry. Ben learned to read a road map just as well as he could read a political map. And I can assure you that my office never took a wrong turn under Ben's stewardship. Mr. President, I rise today to say thanks to Ben Alexander for all he has done for me and for the people of South Carolina. As he heads off to law school, he will remain a member of the extended Hollings family. I appreciate this opportunity to thank him for a job well done and to wish him every success in the years ahead.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate held three rollcall votes relating to United States policy in Bosnia. Regrettably, I was necessarily absent during these votes due to my attendance at a funeral in South Carolina. Had I been present at the time, I would have voted for the Cohen amendment, for the Nunn-Graham amendment, and for final passage of the Dole-Lieberman bill (S. 21). I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to state my position and I thank the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would clarify the Department of Transportation's authority with respect to preemployment alcohol testing of our transportation workers. The bill seeks to make the program originally instituted through the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 more effective by eliminating the requirement for preemployment alcohol testing, and making the test permissive instead. Mothers Against Drunk Driving [MADD], which was very involved in the original bill, recently said that the mandatory pre-employment testing of all applicants ``regardless of their other qualifications may be unduly burdensome. It does not seem to make much sense to require that an applicant be tested who did not have the qualifications for the job and who was not going to be offered a position.'' I agree with MADD, and so does Secretary Pena, who has asked that I sponsor this clarifying legislation. The legislation, if enacted, could save the affected industries about $30 million. It is an effort to streamline the Department's regulations and make them more reasonable, while not changing in any way our commitment to eliminating the use and abuse of alcohol and drugs. From 1987 until 1991, I fought to require drug and alcohol testing of our transportation system employees. The Commerce Committee reported numerous bills in an effort to improve safety after the tragic rail accident at Chase, MD, in which 16 people were killed. The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act was considered and passed by this body 13 times before we were able to make it the law of the land as part of Public Law 102-143, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1992. The act mandated drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive employees in the aviation, rail, truck, and bus sectors. The act was designed to prevent needless and senseless accidents caused by those individuals who are irresponsibly using and abusing drugs and alcohol while operating our transportation system. I had heard too much testimony, read too many articles, and seen too many reports of accidents where our citizens were put at risk, and injured or killed, because of the foolish actions of some. I said when the bill was passed that the vast majority of transportation sector workers are highly dedicated professionals that do not use drugs or abuse alcohol. Yet, the Act was made necessary to protect workers and travelers from the senseless actions of but a few of their coworkers. The bill today continues our commitment to the traveling public, in a responsible and reasonable manner.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. As the distinguished Senator from Florida knows, I do not need very much time. I am trying to respond to a request that we have on this side to vote around 5:45. Is that agreeable?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I have a request on this side by the leader here.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand we are trying to terminate debate on this particular amendment and then the leader wishes a vote on another matter. Let me thank Members for the bipartisan support and the experts that we have heard in the debate, especially the distinguished ranking member of our committee, who has studied it closely. We made the cuts. We were using a $22 million figure. The distinguished chairman now of that subcommittee says it is $23 million, so now it amounts to more than a 30-percent cut that we are cutting the Office of Technology Assessment. When he talks of the number of employees, Mr. President, there are 4,707 employees over there at GAO. I think we perhaps ought to consolidate it a little bit more. These arguments that we have heard out of the whole cloth, never have I heard that the Office of Technology Assessment never studied one of the greatest advancements in science and technology, the super collider. They certainly did not, because they have to be asked by these committees, and the committee chairmen were already in favor of it, and they did not want that study. Now, if we had that studied, and they asked, we would have had it, and we might have done away with the super collider a lot quicker, which perhaps the Senator from Florida and I and the Senator from Nevada and I agree on. It is $36 billion in research and studies and development over in the Pentagon--billions. The distinguished Senator from Nevada says we have to economize. But then the Senator from Utah says, ``Wait a minute. We have to look at the entire Government.'' I do not know how to satisfy these arguments. We have worked to protect the Library of Congress in this amendment and hope that our colleagues will support us.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to my colleague from Wisconsin without losing the right to the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished colleague. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this amendment is one to retain the Office of Technology Assessment. It first occurred over on the House side. The bill came out of the committee abolishing the Office of Technology Assessment but on the floor the House added $15 million for its continuance, taking it out of the hide of the Library of Congress. On yesterday, Mr. President, at the full appropriations committee markup, I offered an amendment. I was not quite prepared then, and I should be better prepared at this moment. Yesterday, I was not quite prepared because I wanted to present the amendment without cutting the Library of Congress. The fact of the matter is we had a very close vote, and if I had had the proxies of absent Members, this amendment would not be necessary today. It would have been adopted in committee and on the bill at the moment. Be that as it may, Mr. President, I have now clarified the provisions of this $15 million. The President's budget for the Office of Technology Assessment is some $22 million, and this continues OTA but levels a 30-percent cut, at a level of $15 million, to be obtained from a 1.12-percent cut from the various legislative accounts--the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Building, Capitol Grounds, Senate office buildings, the Capitol Power Plant, the salaries and expenses of the Superintendent of Documents, the Government Printing Office, and a 1.92-percent cut out of the GAO. We thought, twofold; one, we could make that a little over 1-percent cut across the board, obtain the $15 million, keep OTA in harness, and otherwise, Mr. President, have a study recommendation made by the distinguished colleague from Alaska, who is no longer but served with distinction as the chairman of the Office of Technology Assessment. His suggestion was that we have a study on how best to consolidate the various legislative or congressional services within this segment of the budget and save money. There is no question that this amendment not only saves OTA, but it saves money. It is bipartisan. I offer this amendment for myself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Robb, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wellstone, and others who support this legislation. We have now solved the problem relative to the Library of Congress; Dr. Billington--and he is a good friend and an outstanding librarian--has been doing his homework. Mr. President, I do not have charts or prepared statements. I agreed to limit my comments without charts so let me get right to the heart of the matter. Back in the Nixon administration, they abolished the Office of Science Adviser, and at that particular time the various committees were crowding in saying we have to learn about this, we have to know about that. We always referred it to the Office of Science Adviser. We could depend on it; it had credibility. They said, let us get together in a bipartisan fashion, which we did, with alternating between the House and the Senate as chairman, alternating between Democrats and Republicans. We have had quite a successful administration at the Office of Technology Assessment. One way it saves us money is by having these distinguished boards, advisory panels, counseling the Office of Technology Assessment. They are comprised of college presidents, heads of the science departments from the institutes of technology, and others around the country who give outstanding assistance free of charge, counseling on the various technological questions. If we go right to it, I think one of the principal objections is that the needs for these studies will not go away. If each committee crowds in on the technological needs for information from the General Accounting Office, obviously the General Accounting Office will go out and hire all of these people and meet themselves coming around the corner having in all probability expended more money. Now, what is wrong? This crowd--and I guess I am in on it, too, because I get frustrated on figuring out where you try to save money. I have been through the exercise of freezes, the cuts of Gramm-Rudman- Hollings, a value-added tax allocated to the deficit and all the other attempts made to get us in the black. Unfortunately, in today's political climate, individual chairmen come around and say, ``Well, I have got to eliminate something.'' And more or less, if this amendment passes, it would take away a Brownie point from their political resume. It is easy to go campaign next year and say, ``I am for economy, and I got rid of the Office of Technology Assessment. That is saving $15 million.'' Come on. Two nights ago ABC reported on a particular misguided missile, $4 billion. You never heard this crowd that is fussing about $15 million--we took almost 2 hours in the Appropriations Committee trying to save $15 million or trying to sustain the need to know of the Members of this Congress. But they do not talk about that $4 billion. Now, that is where the Congress ought to really be working. Do not come around here to get a Brownie point on a political resume about how we saved and got rid of the Office of Technology Assessment. That is good in the 20-second bite. They will not just say how much they saved and everything else of that kind. But instead they cry in frustration, ``Well, if we can't cut this, where can we cut?" I can give them a list. I voted this morning against the space station. I was former chairman of Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I do not like to vote against the space station, but I am trying to maintain the space program. And you see, you learn from experience. They came forward with the space station at $8 billion. The next thing you know it was at $17 billion. The next thing you know it was $30 billion. We have had four revisions of cutting it back until all I think we are going to get is the booster or the thruster up in space and we'll call it a station before we get through. Now they have a new angle--that it is a matter of comity with the Soviets and everything else. Fine business. If we were fat, rich, and happy, a space station could well be in order. But we are broke. This Congress and Government around here for 15 years now has been spending on an average of $200 billion more than we are taking in. So we are not paying our way, and we have to not just cut; we have to forgo. Another one, AmeriCorps. I believe in voluntarism, but I expect it. We had it when we had Hurricane Hugo. I stood in the rain that weekend, and we counted up volunteers from 38 States that had come around to help us. The first plane that landed in Hurricane Andrew or whatever it was down there at Homestead was our plane that carried generators, clean water, and personnel. We had Spanish-speaking police officers, and you saw them at Hurricane Andrew in the recovery. No cost to Florida, we sent them down from Charleston. The people of America believe in volunteering, and they will continue to work to help their neighborhoods. Oh, it is good to say on your resume I believe in voluntarism and I voted for AmeriCorps. But instead, I withheld my vote. So I have been saving the money. So do not come around here saying, ``Oh, if we cannot get rid of this.'' You are not getting rid of it. The need is there. What you are doing is eliminating the most economical approach, the most technologically adept approach to this technological need. Now, that is the best statement I can make. I note that some of the other Senators want to talk, but I can mention some of the examples of where we save the Government not just millions but billions. The distinguished Senator from Alaska, I do not know whether he can approach the floor. On yesterday, we talked about the spectrum auction, and that came out of the Office of Technology Assessment. And we put it up, and in the last 2 years now we have brought to the Government $12 billion--not $15 million, $12 billion--from those auctions. So here is a money-making entity. Those who are frustrated and say, ``If I cannot cut this, where can I cut?'' I cannot understand those who are committed to ignorance. We are trying to find out. We are trying to learn. We, who have been dealing with the Office of Technology Assessment, study very closely and look at their particular commitments. We just do not take anything and everything. In fact, all of the requests made are bipartisan. They come from the chairmen and the ranking members of the committees themselves. We get way more requests than we respond to and cannot take on each and every question that would come. So it comes with a real need from the Congress itself. OTA has responded. It has done a professional job. There is no criticism in this debate about the quality of work. I am not going to try to overwhelm you and bring all the studies and everything else. But we can get into a few of them. I am pleased--I have checked this amendment through with our distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Washington, and I will be glad to adjust it. Do not tell me that we can give everything to GAO; we know GAO can do it. That is not true. I worked closely for years as chairman of the Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee, working with Elmer Staats and everything else. What we had to do was cut out all the term papers that were being made for high school graduates and everything over there. They will take on anything to keep the work going. Let us not do that. Let us keep the Office of Technology Assessment at an economical price and continue it and not abolish it in the political urge to get rid of something here. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.