Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOLLINGS. There is no question, Senator----

Mr. HOLLINGS. I am delighted to yield.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No. You bring out the point that this is bipartisan. President Clinton said he had to have fast track for NAFTA.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I tell the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, they literally have almost a dozen and a half pages of all of these agreements, right here in the President's report, that were obtained without fast track.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. If the Senate had been in session listening and heard the persuasive argument made by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and we had a vote, we would vote his way immediately because he has presented the case. The only thing is, he has not presented the case in the stark reality that it really is. We are talking to a fixed jury. As an old trial lawyer for some 20 years, where I made enough to afford the luxury of serving here, I know how to talk to a fixed jury. Specifically, the contention in the trial of this case is that we have to give the President negotiating authority that cannot be amended; it is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; and that the trading nations, some, let's say, 160, 170 trading countries, just will not enter into an agreement unless the President has fast track. He doesn't want to go through the negotiation period and then find that his particular trade agreement has been amended on the floor of the Congress. If you refer to the 2001 Trade Policy Agenda and 2000 Annual Report, which is the most recent, issued by the U.S. Trade Representative, turn to page 1 of the list of trade agreements. You will find, in essence, five trade agreements as a result of fast track, and thereafter some 200 agreements without fast track. The contention that you can't get an agreement unless you have fast track is totally absurd. We have had the Tokyo round, and the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Incidentally, this Senator voted for that because we have relatively the same standard of living. We have the labor protections. We have the environmental protections. When you have a level playing field, I am delighted to vote for trade, and so-called free trade. But now, we have fixed trade. That is what we are debating. This jury is fixed. We also had the United States-Israel trade agreement, which I also supported; NAFTA, which I opposed; and the Uruguay Round with WTO. Those are the five so- called trade agreements under fast track. But then turn the pages and continue turning, and there are some 200 trade agreements without fast track. When I first got here, we had SALT I, and it was very complex. We had reservations and amendments on the floor of the Congress. We had a vote on that. We didn't have fast track for SALT I and fast track for SALT II and fast track for the chemical weapons treaty. The contention of the White House is you can't get trade agreements, but the President needs to look at his own book.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Now you begin to see what I started to talk about--the corruption, not of Senators, but of the process. You and I saw the corruption of the process when they brought TV cameras in here. I first got here 35 years ago. If you wanted to know what was going on down on the floor, you had to go down on the floor. So you always had 20, 25 Senators in this cloakroom, 20 Senators over in that cloakroom; and a point was made that you could immediately go out and contest that point. Now I stay back in my office looking at my TV. I know that is wrong, and I should run over to the floor. But when I get here, two other Senators have been waiting for an hour as the next speakers. So there is no debate. The process has been corrupted, as the budget process has been corrupted. Let me tell you exactly how it happened because I was chairman of the Budget Committee. I went over with Alan Greenspan in January of 1981 to brief President Reagan on the budget. He had pledged to balance the budget. He pledged, of course, tax cuts. He also pledged to balance the budget in 1 year. After the briefing, he said: Oops, this is way worse than I thought. It is going to take 3 years. That is how we got into the 3-year budgets. And with Gramm-Rudman- Hollings, we got the 5-year budget, and now we have 10-year budgets. Whoopee, let's have a 20-year budget and make all kinds of happy projections and re-elect ourselves. That is the corruption that has gone on. After President Reagan came in, the Greenspan Commission issued their report on Social Security, making it fiscally sound. Section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report said: Put Social Security off budget. As a former chairman of the Budget Committee and an old-timer, I worked with John Heinz from Pennsylvania, and we finally got it passed. On November 5, 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush--President senior Bush--signed into law, section 13.301 that says you shall not use Social Security in your budget. But we do. The President violates it, the Congress violates it, and, more particularly, the media does. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia is so terrific on historical reference, and I must think at this moment of President Thomas Jefferson. When he was asked: Between a free government and a free press, which would you choose? He said: I choose the latter. So long as the free press tells the truth to the American people, the Government will remain free. Why do they say on page 1, which we have just put into the Record, the deficit is $165 billion? But on page 60, the deficit, the real debt we will spend in this fiscal year, Madam President, is $412 billion more than we take in. Why? Because Mitch Daniels, our Enron accountant--wants to fool Americans. He is more interested in rolling out hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for Kenny-Boy Lay. Now, President Reagan, in trying to get both tax cuts and his pledge to balance the budget, got what he called ``unified.'' That was the biggest bunch of nonsense and charade I ever saw because it was all but unified. He just separated out the trust funds, including Social Security, and the civil service retirement and military retirees funds. He factored them out, and the next thing you know, we had unified. Then, under President Clinton, we went to on-budget, off-budget, on- budget, off-budget. Then to continue the charade, under President Bush, we refer to it as public debt and Government debt, Government debt and public debt. They confuse the public in order to get reelected. They tell everybody Social Security is not spent. That is exactly what the Secretary of the Treasury said this last Sunday. He said that under no circumstance would we spend Social Security. I almost went through the TV set when I heard him say: Social Security moneys are never spent for anything except Social Security. It's a red herring. CBO has already said we will owe not $1.170 trillion, but $1.333 trillion to Social Security. In fact, on page 44 of the Mid-Session Review you will see Mitch Daniels hides that fact. I ask unanimous consent that page 44 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. They said if we pass NAFTA we would get 200,000 jobs, but we lost 700,000 textile jobs. In the State of South Carolina, since NAFTA, we have lost more than 54,000 jobs. Now, this farm crowd, they get their $70 billion bill, and they come here blinking their eyes and talking about free trade, free trade. They get all the subsidies and protection--the Export-Import Bank, support payments, and everything else of that kind--and they run away with some $80 billion. The poor, hard-working people, such as your mine workers and my textile workers--

Mr. HOLLINGS. As the distinguished Senator from Texas always says, they are pulling the wagon, paying the taxes, keeping the country strong. We have removed 700,000 textile jobs alone. Akio Morita and I went to a seminar in Chicago almost 20 years ago, and they were lecturing about the Third World countries, the emerging nations trying to become nation states. Morita, then head of Sony, said: Wait a minute, in order to become a nation state, you have to develop a strong manufacturing capacity. Then later, he turned and said to this Senator: Senator, the world power that loses its manufacturing strength will cease to be a world power. I am worried about this country. I tell you, we have over a $412 billion deficit in fiscal year 2002. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that page 1 and page 60 of the Mid-Session review on the budget just issued be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to reluctantly oppose the Graham-Smith amendment. First of all, let me commend the distinguished Senior Senator from Florida for the leadership he has shown throughout the years to bring a meaningful prescription drug benefit to Medicare. America's senior citizens have no stronger ally in this body than Senator Bob Graham. He has worked tirelessly to provide real relief to Medicare beneficiaries from their prescription drug costs and I was proud to stand with him, Senator Miller, and Senator Kennedy last week to try to move ahead with a real drug benefit. However, I must oppose this amendment because it largely neglects the vast middle-class of senior citizens. Just yesterday, Secretary Thompson granted South Carolina a Section 1115 waiver to bring our state's SilverxCard program under Medicaid, thereby allowing the program to expand coverage to seniors with incomes of up to 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Thus, the very same seniors that would receive comprehensive coverage under the Graham- Smith Amendment can already receive coverage, albeit more limited, in South Carolina through Medicaid or SilverxCard. This amendment would not make one additional Medicare beneficiary in South Carolina eligible for prescription drug coverage. I also have found that affluent seniors in South Carolina can either afford supplemental prescription drug coverage on their own or have a plan from a former employer that contains prescription drug coverage. Which seniors are left furthest behind in South Carolina? It is the middle-class, those individuals who spent their lives working in the textile mills, manning the assembly line, teaching in our schools, and tending to our farmland. They worked hard, paid taxes into Medicare, and deserve to receive the same benefits under Medicare as anyone else. I cannot in good conscience vote for an amendment that tells a senior citizen with an income of $17,720 that, yes, you receive a real prescription drug benefit and another senior citizens with an income of $17,721 that, no, you have to spend $3,300 out of your own pocket before you receive any assistance. We did this once already with Medicare. It failed and this Senator learned that we should not do it again. I understand the desire of many of my colleagues to pass something, anything to help citizens afford their prescription drugs. I talk to the same people and receive the same heart-wrenching letters from constituents as they do. I know their commitment and desire to enact legislation this year is real and genuine, but I simply cannot support this approach. All of our seniors deserve comprehensive Medicare prescription drug coverage. I still believe that we can reach agreement before the end of the year on a real, meaningful benefit for all our seniors and stand ready to work with my colleagues to make this possible.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, in introducing this bill to authorize the National Science Foundation through FY 2007. My friends and I represent three Committees with a strong interest in NSF, and we chose a straightforward title for the name of this bill, the NSF Doubling Act, because our intentions our simple and straightforward. Congress's intent is to double NSF's budget by fiscal year 2007. NSF is the Nation's premier federal science agency that invests in basic research across all disciplines that is on the frontiers of science. In 1945, Vannevar Bush's report for President Roosevelt led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation. Since then, this nation has been on a path of solid investment in the scientific research that underlies our future economic health and well being. It's no mistake that Alan Greenspan and other important economists have noted that more than one-half of our Nation's economic growth since World War I has stemmed from technology driven by science. By next year, we in Congress will have succeeded in our goal to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health. I applaud that effort. But as scientific disciplines have become fundamentally interdependent, advances in the health sciences necessarily depend on advances in math, computer science, and engineering. NSF is the only Federal agency specifically charged with ensuring a broad and deep base of fundamental knowledge across disciplines. This mission is critical to technological innovation, our economy, and our general health and welfare as a Nation. I have said that our intentions are simple and straightforward. So let me set out three simple reasons why this doubling is vital to our future: The first concerns our security. Not only does NSF fund areas, such as cyber security, that are critical to protecting our nation, but NSF is the agency that takes the lead in ensuring that this country has sufficient human capital to ensure our continued world leadership in science and technology. The Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security warned that our failure to invest in science and to reform math and science education was the second biggest threat to our national security, only the threat of a weapon of mass destruction in an American city was a greater danger. NSF invests in math and science education from kindergarten all the way through to the post-doctoral level and beyond. This bill allows the Foundation to increase that investment, while reaffirming our commitment to women, minorities, and people with disabilities. These underrepresented groups, together, make up more than half of our Nation's work force and are only increasing. Letting these groups fall by the wayside would not only threaten our economic competitiveness, but also our national security. Second pertains to our economy. I have already talked about science and technology driving our economic growth. Let me give just one example of how NSF's investments can spur our economy. NSF is the leading agency in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Nanotechnology, which is the science of manipulating matter at the atomic and molecular level, will cut across every scientific discipline, including materials and manufacturing, healthcare and medicine, energy and the environment, agriculture, biotechnology, information technology, and national security. Worldwide, the market for nanotechnology is expected to be $1 trillion annually within 10 to 15 years. NSF's cross-disciplinary approach, which includes groundbreaking research into the way society and this new technology will interact, will help this nation take advantage of Nanotechnology sooner, better, and with greater confidence. The third involves basic research. NSF is responsible for the overall health and well-being of the research enterprise in this country. One way NSF does this is through continued support for the EPSCoR program. EPSCoR supports the development of the science and technology resources of individual States like South Carolina, through partnerships that involve the State's universities, industry, government, and the Federal research and development enterprise. For example, NSF supports an Engineering Research Center focused on advanced fibers and films at Clemson University that, through partnerships and continued investment over the next 10 years, will make Clemson the national leader in advanced fibers and films technologies. I think these arguments are solid, simple, and straightforward. We can talk about NSF's past outstanding contributions to science. We can talk about the future and the importance of science and technology to our economy. But, where the rubber meets the road, we have to stop talking and invest, with real money, in the science and engineering enterprise that will guaranty the health, economic viability, and security of our future. I, for one, appreciate the hard work that NSF has done over the past 52 years promoting the progress of science, and I urge my Senate colleagues to support me in providing this agency the resources needed to conquer tomorrow.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, in introducing this bill to authorize the National Science Foundation through FY 2007. My friends and I represent three Committees with a strong interest in NSF, and we chose a straightforward title for the name of this bill, the NSF Doubling Act, because our intentions our simple and straightforward. Congress's intent is to double NSF's budget by fiscal year 2007. NSF is the Nation's premier federal science agency that invests in basic research across all disciplines that is on the frontiers of science. In 1945, Vannevar Bush's report for President Roosevelt led to the establishment of the National Science Foundation. Since then, this nation has been on a path of solid investment in the scientific research that underlies our future economic health and well being. It's no mistake that Alan Greenspan and other important economists have noted that more than one-half of our Nation's economic growth since World War I has stemmed from technology driven by science. By next year, we in Congress will have succeeded in our goal to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health. I applaud that effort. But as scientific disciplines have become fundamentally interdependent, advances in the health sciences necessarily depend on advances in math, computer science, and engineering. NSF is the only Federal agency specifically charged with ensuring a broad and deep base of fundamental knowledge across disciplines. This mission is critical to technological innovation, our economy, and our general health and welfare as a Nation. I have said that our intentions are simple and straightforward. So let me set out three simple reasons why this doubling is vital to our future: The first concerns our security. Not only does NSF fund areas, such as cyber security, that are critical to protecting our nation, but NSF is the agency that takes the lead in ensuring that this country has sufficient human capital to ensure our continued world leadership in science and technology. The Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security warned that our failure to invest in science and to reform math and science education was the second biggest threat to our national security, only the threat of a weapon of mass destruction in an American city was a greater danger. NSF invests in math and science education from kindergarten all the way through to the post-doctoral level and beyond. This bill allows the Foundation to increase that investment, while reaffirming our commitment to women, minorities, and people with disabilities. These underrepresented groups, together, make up more than half of our Nation's work force and are only increasing. Letting these groups fall by the wayside would not only threaten our economic competitiveness, but also our national security. Second pertains to our economy. I have already talked about science and technology driving our economic growth. Let me give just one example of how NSF's investments can spur our economy. NSF is the leading agency in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Nanotechnology, which is the science of manipulating matter at the atomic and molecular level, will cut across every scientific discipline, including materials and manufacturing, healthcare and medicine, energy and the environment, agriculture, biotechnology, information technology, and national security. Worldwide, the market for nanotechnology is expected to be $1 trillion annually within 10 to 15 years. NSF's cross-disciplinary approach, which includes groundbreaking research into the way society and this new technology will interact, will help this nation take advantage of Nanotechnology sooner, better, and with greater confidence. The third involves basic research. NSF is responsible for the overall health and well-being of the research enterprise in this country. One way NSF does this is through continued support for the EPSCoR program. EPSCoR supports the development of the science and technology resources of individual States like South Carolina, through partnerships that involve the State's universities, industry, government, and the Federal research and development enterprise. For example, NSF supports an Engineering Research Center focused on advanced fibers and films at Clemson University that, through partnerships and continued investment over the next 10 years, will make Clemson the national leader in advanced fibers and films technologies. I think these arguments are solid, simple, and straightforward. We can talk about NSF's past outstanding contributions to science. We can talk about the future and the importance of science and technology to our economy. But, where the rubber meets the road, we have to stop talking and invest, with real money, in the science and engineering enterprise that will guaranty the health, economic viability, and security of our future. I, for one, appreciate the hard work that NSF has done over the past 52 years promoting the progress of science, and I urge my Senate colleagues to support me in providing this agency the resources needed to conquer tomorrow.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my Commerce Committee colleagues to speak to legislation that would extend the deadline for Intelsat to conduct the initial public offering required of it by the ORBIT satellite privatization law. Under ORBIT, Intelsat must conduct an IPO by December 31, 2002. Intelsat has made substantial preparations to do just that. Recent disastrous events in the telecommunications market, however, now make this statutory deadline unrealistic and potentially contrary to the policy objectives of ORBIT. This bill would therefore give Intelsat another year in which to conduct its IPO and also provides the FCC authority to allow an additional extension of time if warranted by market conditions. The goal of ORBIT's IPO requirement was to substantially dilute the ownership of the privatized Intelsat by its former owners, many of which are foreign government entities. I continue to support this goal. The Commerce Committee has been provided with significant evidence that this goal is already in the process of being achieved. For example: July 18, 2001: Intelsat privatized in a transaction that resulted in 14 percent of the new entity being held by non-signatory investing entities; April 26, 2002; Intelsat filed its IPO registration statement with the SEC; May 2002: Natural dilution of Intelsat signatories continued as foreign governments privatized their telecom operations: Intelsat non- signatory ownership increased to 22 percent; June 14, 2002: The FCC issued its ORBIT Act report, finding that, ``On the whole, we believe that U.S. policy goals regarding the promotion of a fully competitive global market for satellite communications services are being met in accordance with the Act.'' June 21, 2002: Intelsat received clearance from the New York Stock Exchange to file a listing application to trade its ordinary shares on that exchange. This is a good start. More remains to be done, but it appears that Intelsat has been proceeding in a manner consistent with launching its IPO prior to the December 31, 2002 ORBIT deadline. Recently, however, uncontrollable external events overtook all of us. WorldCom's bankruptcy is but the latest financial debate in the telecommunications industry, which has been unstable. Capital markets are extremely unsupportive of additional investment at this time. There arguably could not be a worse time for a satellite communications company to consider an IPO. If forced to move ahead with an IPO before the end of 2002, Intelsat will probably receive a reduced price for its shares offered. Foreign entities that still own significant portions of Intelsat are aware of this likelihood and would therefore be discouraged from offering their ownership interests for sale. Instead of the substantial dilution of prior owners contemplated by the ORBIT Act, a year--2002 IPO might not achieve much dilution whatsoever. In that instance, Intelsat would have complied with the procedural requirement of ORBIT without the substantive result that we in Congress sought: dilution of previous owners. Given the current adverse conditions in the stock market in general and the telecommunications sector in particular, the only way to ensure the dilution results sought by ORBIT may be to allow Intelsat to further delay its IPO. That result is good public policy that is also good for the long-term health of the satellite communications industry. Mr. President, this bill needs to be enacted this year. I thank my colleagues for their support and I urge the prompt passage of this legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today as Chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to introduce the Seafood Safety Enforcement Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined by the Republican minority leader, Senator Trent Lott, and by Senator John Breaux, both distinguished members of the Commerce Committee. This Act would ensure that imports of seafood into the United States are meeting the same food safety standards imposed on seafood that originates from the United States. Shrimp and other seafood harvested and processed in the United States is some of the best quality seafood in the world. I know how hard the shrimpers in my State of South Carolina work to bring good, wholesome products to our tables. To preserve the quality of seafood, the United States has established rigorous food standards to protect the health and well-being of American consumers. As part of that approach, we have banned the use of certain harmful substances in food-producing animals due to the extreme hazards they pose to human health. While these standards also apply to imported foods that cross our borders, these protections cannot be enforced without adequate inspection and testing. Unfortunately, not all countries are applying the same rigorous standards that the United States demands for our consumers. In the last few months, one of the banned substances, namely the antibiotic chloramphenicol, was detected in shrimp and other food product imported from several countries to the United States, the European Union and Canada. Shockingly these substances have not been detected by the inspectors for the federal Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the agency responsible for protecting U.S. consumers from adulterated food imports. Rather, these substances were detected in the United States by independent testing done by State authorities in Louisiana. While these products are prohibited by law, FDA testing has never detected such substances in food imports. We were alarmed to discover that FDA currently tests only 1 to 2 percent of all food imports for compliance with food safety standards. This failure to detect such substances may be due not only to inadequate frequency of testing, but also may be attributed to inadequate testing methods employed by the FDA. While the testing protocol used in Europe and Canada can detect such substances to 0.3 parts per billion ppb, FDA until very recently used a technique that only measures up to 3 ppb, and now is using a test that only detects to 1 ppb. It is vital that we close this inspection gap at our borders and ensure the safety of our food supply, while not placing unreasonable burdens on the men and women who are tasked with this huge inspection job. This bill would ensure that U.S. consumers are protected from serious health risks associated with harmful substances, while allowing the continued flow of imports that are shown to be free of these harmful substances. It would require FDA to ensure that imports suspected of containing such substances are demonstrated to meet food safety standards. Such demonstration would be made by the importer or exporter, and subject to FDA approval. Due to the health threats posed by such substances in our food supply, and the national interest of having a uniform inspection and testing standard, federal action is appropriate. This bill provides the safety and security we seek, while not placing unreasonable burdens on our federal food safety inspection system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today as Chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee to introduce the Seafood Safety Enforcement Act of 2002. I am pleased to be joined by the Republican minority leader, Senator Trent Lott, and by Senator John Breaux, both distinguished members of the Commerce Committee. This Act would ensure that imports of seafood into the United States are meeting the same food safety standards imposed on seafood that originates from the United States. Shrimp and other seafood harvested and processed in the United States is some of the best quality seafood in the world. I know how hard the shrimpers in my State of South Carolina work to bring good, wholesome products to our tables. To preserve the quality of seafood, the United States has established rigorous food standards to protect the health and well-being of American consumers. As part of that approach, we have banned the use of certain harmful substances in food-producing animals due to the extreme hazards they pose to human health. While these standards also apply to imported foods that cross our borders, these protections cannot be enforced without adequate inspection and testing. Unfortunately, not all countries are applying the same rigorous standards that the United States demands for our consumers. In the last few months, one of the banned substances, namely the antibiotic chloramphenicol, was detected in shrimp and other food product imported from several countries to the United States, the European Union and Canada. Shockingly these substances have not been detected by the inspectors for the federal Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the agency responsible for protecting U.S. consumers from adulterated food imports. Rather, these substances were detected in the United States by independent testing done by State authorities in Louisiana. While these products are prohibited by law, FDA testing has never detected such substances in food imports. We were alarmed to discover that FDA currently tests only 1 to 2 percent of all food imports for compliance with food safety standards. This failure to detect such substances may be due not only to inadequate frequency of testing, but also may be attributed to inadequate testing methods employed by the FDA. While the testing protocol used in Europe and Canada can detect such substances to 0.3 parts per billion ppb, FDA until very recently used a technique that only measures up to 3 ppb, and now is using a test that only detects to 1 ppb. It is vital that we close this inspection gap at our borders and ensure the safety of our food supply, while not placing unreasonable burdens on the men and women who are tasked with this huge inspection job. This bill would ensure that U.S. consumers are protected from serious health risks associated with harmful substances, while allowing the continued flow of imports that are shown to be free of these harmful substances. It would require FDA to ensure that imports suspected of containing such substances are demonstrated to meet food safety standards. Such demonstration would be made by the importer or exporter, and subject to FDA approval. Due to the health threats posed by such substances in our food supply, and the national interest of having a uniform inspection and testing standard, federal action is appropriate. This bill provides the safety and security we seek, while not placing unreasonable burdens on our federal food safety inspection system. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues an excellent essay by the best of the best, Sandy Weill. As the article points out, most corporate executives, like Sandy Weill, are honest and already enacting changes in their companies to provide better accounting disclosure policies. As the message comes from someone who has distinguished himself as a business leader, it is a message I hope all American business executives not only hear, but heed. I ask to print the essay in the Record. The essay follows: Core Values Start at the Top America has long had a financial system to be proud of and it is therefore critical--particularly at a time of danger and uncertainty--that both industry and government enact changes to address the recent corporate scandals that have shaken faith in the system and its corporate executives. The country will come through this period stronger than ever, but only with the hard work of legislators, regulators and, most important chief executive officers. George W. Bush's call for a new ethic of corporate responsibility comes at the right time, with its emphasis on holding corporate officers more accountable, protecting small investors, moving accounting out of the shadows and providing better disclosure along with a stronger and more independent corporate audit system. The president's proposal that corporate officers lose compensation they may receive by manipulating their accounting statements, and efforts by Harvey Pitt, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to make CEOs more individually accountable for their companies' financial disclosures should be welcomed. Used correctly, option grants should not only reward good performance but encourage a long-term perspective. Many companies use them for this purpose: more should. I have long been a proponent of ``buy-and-hold'' investing, and at Citigroup, our senior managers and board abide by a rigorous stock ownership commitment. Every one of us makes a pledge--a ``blood oath''--to hold three-quarters of any stock or options we receive as long as we remain with the company, which reinforces our consistent focus on the long term. Also, we have never repriced stock options for our senior executives, and we never will. When companies do this, an alarm should sound that the long-term alignment of shareholde and management interests is not in place. To ensure that everyone in a company is focused on appropriate long-term objectives, stock ownership should go as deep as possible within an organization. To encourage this, and to respond to concerns regarding excess compensation, I suggest that options be expended for the top five officers identified in the proxy, and that tax treatment be enhanced for options given to the rank and file earning less than $100,000 by allowing options to be included in 401(k) pension plans. Proposals to change the accounting or tax treatment of stock options should not hinder these programs--they should encourage other companies to adopt them. In the wake of recent scandals, all CEOs should examine their governance principles. They must push for strong, independent boards and focus on full disclosure. Bullet-proof audit processes, with exhaustive internal and external checks and balances must be in place, reporting to an independent committee of the board whose involvement goes beyond quarterly meetings. Audit partners should be rotated regularly and outside auditors should be used for audit and tax purposes only. Companies must also get back to basic accounting, based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and be required to account for all revenues and expenses rather than producing pro forma or ebitda as their primary income measure. One of the most distressing fall-outs of the current crisis is the public's reduced confidence in audited financial statements, for decades the very underpinning of America's financial system. We cannot make auditors out of lawyers, boards, rating agencies, research analysts or bankers. We need auditors to do their jobs and be accountable to one group alone: the shareholders. I therefore applaud efforts by Senator Paul Sarbanes, Congressman Michael Oxley and the US Congressional leadership towards comprehensive accounting reform legislation. Just as concern over corporate disclosure during the Great Depression led to the creation of the SEC, a strong independent authority must be established to set accounting standards and oversee auditor conduct. In effect, we need an SEC for the accounting industry. Eliot Spitzer, New York's attorney-general, has identified serious issues in the way investment banks and research analysts interact. Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney was the first to adopt voluntarily the research reforms put forward by Mr. Spitzer. These, along with proposals from the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange, are setting higher standards for the industry. Even so, we must do more. I believe the entire industry should be subject to additional rules that make research independent from investment banking. Analysts should be barred from attending any meeting with investment bankers soliciting business from public companies and from participating in any ``roadshow'' presentation to investors. Investment bankers should be barred from having any input in determining the compensation of research analysts and from previewing any research reports prior to publication. The current crisis is an opportunity to recapture core values. But this will only be possible if CEOs accept the responsibility that comes with their rank. It is up to use to lead the way.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today, peaches from my home State have been delivered to offices throughout the Senate and the U.S. Capitol. Those of us here in Washington can cool off from the summer heat with fresh, juicy peaches, thanks to South Carolina's peach farmers. For a tiny State, South Carolina is second, only to California, in peach production. This year we planted 16,000 acres, and expect to harvest 160 to 180 million pounds--twice what we harvested last year when cold weather devastated the crop. Because of hot, dry weather this past month, the peaches are slightly smaller, but the small size usually results in a sweeter peach for the consumer. So with all due respect to my colleagues from Georgia, South Carolina is known as the ``Tastier Peach State'' for good reason. Earlier this spring, in a bipartisan fashion, this Congress passed a generous farm bill that when times are tough, will help the people who feed us. I voted for it. I did so because farmers are dedicated people who need support they can depend on. I hope as Senators and their staffs feast on these peaches, they think about the farmers who get up early every morning and labor all summer in the heat and humidity to bring us this delicious, nutritious, and satisfying harvest. We are so fortunate to have in this country safe, plentiful, and affordable fresh fruit and vegetables--but this Congress can never take that for granted. I thank the South Carolina Peach Council, and especially David Winkles and the South Carolina Farm Bureau, for giving the U.S. Senate a taste of South Carolina. And I remind the rest of America to ask for South Carolina peaches at their groceries.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, last month as sports fans around the world focused their attention on soccer, the student athletes of South Carolina reminded this nation why baseball is America's game. Both the University of South Carolina and Clemson University played in the final rounds for the national title. While the Senators from Texas have the bragging rights to the trophy, I can say this: the South Carolina teams had their most successful seasons ever and engaged in a rivalry that will long be remembered in my state. This year, my alma mater Gamecocks won a record 57 games, in what was supposed to have been a rebuilding year. In the last three years they have had more wins than any team in the nation. In the tournament, they beat their bitter rival Clemson twice, thus making it to the final game for the first time since Jerry Ford was President. For Clemson it was a heartbreaking finish to an incredible run. For two months, the Tigers had been ranked number one in the polls. They won 54 games, the most in their history, including winning 10 games against top 10 teams. And although baseball is a team sport, this Senator cannot overlook one player in particular: Clemson shortstop Khalil Greene. He was named national player of the year. Hitting .470, he may have had the greatest season any Clemson player in any sport has ever had. His season reminds me of when I was a very young fan, in 1930, and Babe Ruth earned $80,000 and was asked why did he make more money than President Hoover, and he replied, ``I had a better year than he did.'' In his professional life, Mr. Greene will probably have better years than any United States Senator, including our Hall of Famer, Senator Bunning. I congratulate Mr. Greene, University of South Carolina Coach Ray Tanner, and Clemson coach Jack Leggett. And I salute all the players who on the field showed us what great athletes they are, and who made this season the best ever for South Carolina baseball fans.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as we watch our budget deficits going up, up, and away, I take solace in knowing that today in South Carolina we are teaching our teenagers the real value of money. The South Carolina Credit Union League, in conjunction with the Clemson Cooperative Extension, is furnishing materials to teachers throughout the State to help build financial literacy among our teenagers. Teenagers spend $155 billion a year nationwide, yet only 10 percent have any financial training in high school. It is imperative that they learn, as early as possible, sound fiscal habits. I thank the credit unions in South Carolina for taking on this initiative, which is part of a nationwide effort, spearheaded by the National Endowment for Financial Education. To recognize the important role high school teachers play in this effort, the credit unions also recently named Sue Dillon, a teacher at Spring Valley High School in Columbia, SC, as the Financial Literacy Educator of the Year. Her commitment to students' financial knowledge is reaching hundreds of young people in five South Carolina schools. Since today's high school graduates stand to earn more than $1 million as adults, the lessons Ms. Dillon teaches may be some of the most valuable her students ever learn. I congratulate her on receiving this honor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the administration version of the Department of Defense authorization bill included a provision that would modify the Marine Mammal Protection Act, MMPA, with respect to ``military readiness activities.'' While acknowledging the need for a well-trained military, it is my strong view that this provision should not be included in the bill. The administration proposal on MMPA would alter the current definition of ``harassment'' for ``takings'' of marine mammals under the MMPA--a cornerstone of the statute. Action on this provision via the Department of Defense authorization bill is problematic for several reasons. First, the MMPA is a complex statute. These provisions have not been appropriately examined in a Senate hearing--no testimony is in the record from experts and others who need to consider the validity of the issues raised and the ramifications of the proposed language. Second, the MMPA has many stakeholders and end users. It would be inappropriate to alter the statute for one set of users and not others. The MMPA needs to be taken as a whole, and not amended piecemeal. Third, it is not clear that these changes are needed, or that the proposal brought forward by the administration would be the correct way to address concerns. For these reasons, I want to make it clear that I oppose inclusion of this provision in the Department of Defense authorization bill--whether via floor amendments or via conference with the House. The committee of jurisdiction--the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of which I am chairman--is the appropriate venue for considering the military's concerns and any proposals for change. navy airborne radar technology capable of all-weather attack on time critical targets and enemy mobile ground forces

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the judges who today declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words ``under God'' threw out reason and common sense and misread the Constitution. What we are left with is an absurd result. The first amendment of the Constitution allows for not only freedom of religion, but freedom to exercise religion. It is ludicrous that we can't say ``under God.'' Using these judges' twisted logic, ``In God We Trust'' couldn't be on coins, and we would have to edit the Declaration of Independence because it says that all men are ``endowed by their Creator.'' When reason, common sense, and the correct interpretation of the Constitution return, this opinion will be reversed. I thank the Chair and yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I wish to congratulate the hard working employees of the Columbia Air Traffic Control Tower, which was selected as the National Facility of the Year for ATC level 7. The award will be presented to them on Wednesday, June 26, 2002. These controllers have shown a distinct dedication to their work and should be very proud of this high honor. The award is given annually to the Air Traffic Control Tower which demonstrates superiority in operational efficiency, customer service, communications, employee development, external relations, resource management and human relations. The professionalism and positive employee morale of the Columbia ATC Tower were also cited as factors in honoring them with this award. In this time of threat to our nation, I am very proud of the Columbia Air Traffic Controllers in South Carolina for receiving such an award and setting a new standard for the rest of the nation. I greatly appreciate their hard work over the past year. I am confident that they will continue to operate in a superior manner and know they understand that the citizens of this country appreciate what they do. I know I do every time I fly in and out of Columbia, our State Capital.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a native of Greenville, SC, Captain Stephen A. Price. He will soon be retiring after a distinguished 26-year career in the Navy, most recently as the division chief at the Defense Logistics Agency's Business Development and Supply Chain Integration, Fort Belvoir, VA. Captain Price has served in a number of challenging positions. At sea, he participated in the highly successful maiden deployment of the USS John C. Stennis to the Arabian Gulf. He also served as an officer on the USS Ashtabula and the USS John L. Hall. His shore assignments, in the Area of Supply, have taken him to four States and to Iceland. His personal awards include three Meritorious Service Medals; and from the Navy and Marine Corps, two Commendation and two Achievement Medals. We all appreciate Captain Prince's service to our Nation. I wish him, his wife Linda, and their two daughters, the very best; and I hope they have more opportunities to return home to South Carolina to visit Captain Prince's family currently residing in Myrtle Beach.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise to address the pending legislation, S. 2600 which is designed to provide financial assistance to the insurance industry concerning coverages and losses due to acts of terrorism--for the purpose of ensuring the continued availability of terrorism insurance coverage. I must say from the outset that I disagree with this legislation, not based on its aims, but the manner in which the legislation is structured and the way it seeks to accomplish its stated goals. This is an issue that the Senate sought to address last fall, during the height of the national market and security crises that were precipitated by the September 11 terrorist attacks. In light of the fact that our commercial markets had never experienced a terrorist attack and losses in the magnitude that occurred on September 11, a great deal of uncertainty was stirred in the marketplace. Claiming that they had no experience in pricing such events, insurance companies threatened wholesale cancellations of terrorism coverage by the end of the year of 2001. Given these circumstances--and the severe threat that was posed to the stability of key industries and markets--clearly Congress was compelled to act. Consequently, I, along with Senator McCain, decided it was necessary for the Commerce Committee to take action. We made this decision in light of the Commerce Committee's longstanding jurisdiction over the business of insurance, and given that the committee had been working on legislation to address the availability of property and casualty insurance in areas prone to natural disasters, which involved issues similar to those relating to terrorism insurance. I would like to emphasize that the Commerce Committee has exercised jurisdiction over the business of insurance for the past 50 years. We have considered legislation relating to: the creation of risk pools and special insurance funds for insuring against natural disasters; the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson Act and the Federal regulation of insurance; Federal oversight of the solvency of insurance companies; the prohibition of discrimination in the sale of insurance; insurance redlining; Federal regulation of automobile insurance; and the availability of liability and property and casualty insurance, which are the very issues this legislation seeks to address. The committee convened a hearing, which included testimony from Treasury Secretary O'Neill, as well as state insurance officials, academics, the Consumer Federation of America, CFA, the National Taxpayers Union, NTU, and the insurance industry. I should note that the main point that was emphasized by the independent witnesses is that a program could and should be designed to ensure the insurance companies used their own resources to provide the necessary backstop to stabilize the market. As they, and state officials advised, the best way to do this was through the creation of a risk pool. Following the hearing, along with Senator McCain and other members of the committee, I began to work with state regulators, CFA and NTU to craft legislation along these lines. Senator McCain and I came to an agreement except for on the matter of punitive damages. Consequently, we introduced two separate bills--S. 1743, my bill, and S. 1744, his bill--both of which would have required a payback by the companies. I will briefly describe my legislation. As I noted, the legislation was constructed from risk pool proposals submitted by the insurance industry, state insurance commissioners, the Consumer Federation of America, CFA, and the National Taxpayers Union. It has been endorsed by 13 current state insurance commissioners--Republican and Democrat. The legislation would establish a risk pool through the creation of a national fund--known as the National Terrorism Fund hereinafter referred to as ``the fund''. The fund will be created within the U.S. Department of Commerce, in conjunction with a 10-member Advisory Committee, which would include the Secretary of Treasury, State insurance regulators, and insurance industry representatives. The fund will be capitalized through an annual assessment of 3 percent of an insurer's previous calendar year direct written gross premiums. The companies writing coverages for the major property and casualty lines would be required to participate. All commercial insurance companies will be required to participate in the fund. Providers of personal insurance coverage will have the option of participating if they believe they need additional reinsurance. Companies will be authorized to pass through the 3 percent assessment to their policyholders. Companies seeking to raise rates beyond these levels will be required to report and justify, with substantial evidence, such actions to State insurance regulators. This is designed to deter companies from using terrorism as an excuse to raise rates overall. Additionally, the bill will maintain enforcement of states' fair trade practices and fair claims practices and laws. Each participating insurer would have a 10 percent retention level based on its previous year's direct written premiums. Once a company suffers losses due to terrorism that exceeds its retention level, the company would be permitted to receive payments from the fund. For example, if a company has direct written premiums of $100 million, its retention would be $10 million. Some have advised that the retention level should be as high as 20 percent. The bill originally contained a 20 percent retention, but it was lowered to 10 percent in response to concerns by the industry. Once a company has met its retention levels, the fund will cover its remaining losses as follows: 90 percent during the first year (90/10). For the second and third years, a company will be permitted to select the amount of coverage from the following options: 90 percent coverage of losses for a premium of 5 percent of its direct written premiums and surplus; 80 percent coverage for a 4 percent premium; and 70 percent coverage for 3 percent premium. If at any time during the 3 years of the program, the losses from the participating companies exceed the fund's capacity, the fund will be authorized to borrow, from the Federal Treasury, moneys to cover the losses up to $100 billion. The fund, through assessments on all participating companies, would be required to repay the loan. The fund and the companies would be given as long as 20 years, if necessary, to repay the loans at standard market interest. If there are outstanding loans due after the expiration of the fund on December 31, 2004, the companies will continue to be assessed until the loans are repaid. If at the end of the program the fund has a positive balance, the participating companies would be allowed to recoup the funds--based on the proportion of each company's contribution--contingent upon a guarantee that the money will be placed in a special catastrophic reserve account. That account could be used only to pay for losses related to terrorism, and major catastrophes, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis. Any company seeking to use the money for other purposes would be subject to criminal penalties. I should also note that as time began to run out last year, I received a call from Secretary O'Neill offering to work together to ensure the passage of a measure to deal with the crisis. I accepted the invitation and had my staff and the administration officials working together the next morning on a compromise bill. We agreed to work upon the outlines of a 1-year stopgap measure. Unfortunately, the Secretary met strong objections from the Republican side of the Chamber. I still believe that any legislation that is passed at this point should require a payback. This is especially the case given reports that the market has stabilized and insurance coverage is available for most businesses. The bill before us essentially provides for 2 years of potential unnecessary payments to insurance companies, who could reap a windfall at the expense of the taxpayers. I also believe that this legislation should not be used as a vehicle for Federal tort reform. This issue killed the bill last year, and may very well derail it this year.