Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that all time on the conference report be yielded back and the Senate vote on adoption of the report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the final vote on the conference report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am very pleased to present to the Senate today the FY 2002 State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies conference report. The conference report before you combines the strongest components from both the Senate and House bills which passed a few months ago, and it addresses new priorities that have arisen since September 11. I could not have done this without the help of the ranking member, Senator Gregg. He and his staff have worked diligently with me and my staff to produce a fair, well balanced, and bi-partisan bill. I also want to thank Chairman Wolf and ranking member Serrano, as well as their staffs, for their commitment to a positive and constructive conference. The outcome of this conference is a bi-partisan and bi- cameral piece of legislation. In fact, the House passed this bill 411- 15 yesterday. I now call on the Senate to pass this bill as well. I have always said that the funds appropriated under this bill affect the lives of all Americans in so many different ways. However, the importance of this bill became even more apparent in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The conference report before you today meets the following three goals: One, it provides funding at the Federal, State, and local level to combat terrorism here at home. In fact, that is exactly what we were debating with Senator Gregg's initiative on counterterrorism at the time the Pentagon was struck that morning. Second, it provides funds to protect American citizens and employees of the American Government, while overseas, and three, this bill continues the numerous domestic programs that have had, and will continue to have, a positive impact on the American way of life. First, this bill continues to fund the counter-terrorism programs under the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP). Most of these funds go directly to States in the form of formula grants for the purchase of equipment to respond to terrorist incidents at both the State and local level. The distribution of funds among State and local agencies are based on State plans that each State must submit to ODP prior to receiving grant funds. Funds provided to the office of domestic preparedness are also used to provide training to State and local law enforcement officials, as well as to provide real-time emergency exercises for first responders and Federal, State, and local executives. The bill also provides a significant increase in funds over last year to ensure that agencies have the resources they need to prevent and fight terrorism. For example, the fiscal year 2002 bill includes a $280 million increase over last year for the Federal Bureau of Investigations and a $700 million increase for Immigration and Naturalization Services. Second, as in past years, the conferees have placed significant resources--$1.3 billion for worldwide security upgrades and $458 million for Embassy construction--into ensuring that our overseas facilities are adequately protected. U.S. citizens and overseas employees utilizing these facilities should be safeguarded against possible terrorist attacks--and the funding provided in this conference report will help assure that they are. Finally, the conferees have placed great emphasis on continuing funding for domestic programs that have a positive impact on the American way of life. It is imperative that the terrorist attack against this Nation does not force us to abandon the vital domestic programs that have made us a great nation. This conference report ensures that those vital programs are not neglected. It continues programs that make our Nation's primary and secondary schools safer by providing grants for the hiring of school resource officers. Funds are provided to protect all Americans by increasing the number of police officers walking the Nation's streets, providing additional funds to fight the growing problem of illegal drug use, guarding consumers from fraud, and shielding children from internet predators. In addition, people throughout this country benefit from weather forecasting services funded through this bill. These Americans include farmers receiving information necessary to effectively manage their crops, and families receiving lifesaving emergency bulletins regarding tornadoes, floods, torrential rains, and hurricanes. This conference report continues to assist States in their efforts to manage overwhelming economic growth in our coastal communities. It also provides funds to preserve our few remaining pristine estuarine areas. Funding is provided to assist our small businesses, to gather economic statistical data, to perfect our census process, to promote export of American products. All of these are vital programs that have contributed daily to the strength of this Nation. In all, the CJS bill totals $39.3 billion in budget authority, which is $1.2 billion above the fiscal year 2001 amount. The Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, as well as the Judiciary, all receive significant increases over prior year appropriations. I would like to take a few minutes to go over some of the specific funding highlights from the SJC bill the conferees are presenting to the Senate: Once again, the FBI's Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report released this past May demonstrates how well these programs are working. According to the FBI's report, in 2000, serious crime has decreased 7-percent from 1998, marking 9 consecutive years of decline. This continues to be the longest running drop in crime on record. Bipartisan efforts to fund DOJ's crime fighting initiatives have impacted this reduction in crime during the past 10 years. The conference report provides $3.5 billion for the FBI, which is $280 million above last year's funding level. To meet the critical need of sharing and storing information within the FBI, the bill provides the FBI with $142 million for the FBI's Computer Modernization Program, Trilogy. In addition, the conference report provides significant funding increases for vital programs such as $6.8 million to improve intercept capabilities; $7 million for counter-encryption resources; $12 million for forensic research; and $32 million for an annex of the engineering research facility, which develops and fields cutting edge technology in support of case agents. The conference report provides $1.48 billion for DEA, $129 million above last year's funding level. Increased funds are provided for technology and infrastructure improvements, including an additional $13 million for DEA's laboratory operations for forensic support. To combat drugs that are reaching our streets and our children, the conference report provides $32.8 million to fight methamphetamine and encourages the DEA to increase its efforts in fighting heroin and emerging drugs such as oxycontin and ecstacy. The conference report also directs the DEA to renew its efforts to work with Mexico in combating drug trafficking and corruption under the country's new President Vicente Fox. For the INS, the conference report includes $5.6 billion, $2 billion of which is derived from fees. This is an $800-million increase over last year's funding level and provides the necessary resources to address border enforcement and benefits processing. For border enforcement, the bill provides $66 million for 570 additional Border Patrol agents, and $25.4 million for 348 additional land border inspectors. To better equip and house these enforcement officers, the conference report provides $2 million for Border vehicles, $22 million for Border equipment, such as search lights, goggles and infrared scopes, $40 million to modernize inspection technology; and $128.4 million for Border patrol and detention facility construction and rehabilitation. For INS' benefits processing efforts, the conference report provides an additional $45 million to specifically address the case backlog and accelerate processing times. This conference report includes $3.24 billion for the Office of Justice Programs, which is $425 million above the amount requested by the President. This bill provides for the funding of a number of important law enforcement programs. The conference report provides $251.4 million to the Office of Domestic Preparedness for equipment and training of State and local law enforcement regarding counter terrorism activities. In addition, $2.4 billion has been provided for State and local law enforcement assistance grants. Within this amount; $594.4 million is provided for the Byrne State and Local Law Enforcement Program; $400 million is provided for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program; $390.5 million is provided for Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, Programs, including programs to assist disabled female victims, programs to reduce violence against women on college campuses, and efforts to address domestic and child abuse in rural areas; and $565 million is provided for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program which reimburses States for the incarceration costs of criminal aliens. Within the amount provided for the Office of Justice Programs, a total of $305.8 million has been included for Juvenile Justice Programs. These funds will go toward programs aimed at reducing delinquency among at-risk youth; assisting States in enforcing underage drinking laws; and enhancing school safety by providing youth with positive role models through structured mentoring programs, training for teachers and families so that they can recognize troubled youth, and training for students on conflict resolution and violence reduction. The conference report includes $1.05 billion in new budget authority, for the COPS Office which is $195.3 million above the President's request. As in prior years, the Senate has provided up to $180 million for the Cops-In-Schools Program to fund up to 1,500 additional school resources officers in fiscal year 2002, which will make a total of 6,100 school resource officers funded since Senator Gregg and I created this program in 1998. The conference report reflects Congress' continued commitment to providing grant funds for the hiring of local law enforcement officers through the Cops Universal Hiring Program. Although the President did not seek funding for this program in fiscal year 2002, the committee has provided $150 million to continue to hire officers, as well as to provide much needed communications technology to the Nation's law enforcement community. Within the Cops budget, the conference report provides increased funding for programs authorized by the Crime Identification and Technology Act, CITA. In fiscal year 2002, $197 million is provided for programs that will improve the retention of, and access to, criminal records nationwide, improve the forensic capabilities of State and local forensic labs, and reduce the backlog of crime scene and convicted offender DNA evidence. And finally, the conference report has provided $70.4 million within Cops to continue the Cops Methamphetamine Initiative. These funds will provide for the clean-up of meth production sites which pose serious health risks to law enforcement and the surrounding public. Funds will also be provided to State and local law enforcement to acquire training and equipment to safely and effectively dismantle existing meth labs. A total of $5.51 billion is provided for the Department of Commerce in fiscal year 2002, this conference report focuses on the goals of improving departmental infrastructure and promoting the advancement of technology. The Department of Commerce consists of 37,000 employees working in agencies as diverse as the Economic Development Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Bureau of the Census. They are highly-trained experts who are responsible for a huge array of critical programs. These employees help minority businesses and small manufacturers flourish, run trade missions to open foreign markets to American goods, forecast hurricanes, estimate the Nation's gross domestic product, set standards and measurements recognized and used world-wide, fly satellites, manage the Nation's fisheries, conduct censuses, and process patents. These missions of the Department of Commerce are the glue that holds together the U.S. economy, both domestically and abroad. There is no doubt as to the importance of the missions under the purview of the Department of Commerce. There is, however, a crisis looming in terms of the infrastructure available to the employees who work there. The conference report we have before us begins to turn the tide on infrastructure needs. In all cases, the conference report funds the President's request for capital upgrades. This includes new information technology systems at the Minority Business Development Agency, the Bureau of the Census, the Economic Development Agency, and the Office of Economic and Statistical Analysis. The conference report includes a $76 million increase for the next generation of polar- orbiting satellites. It also includes a new radio spectrum measurement system at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. We also encourage the United States Patent and Trademark Office to reflect on its infrastructure needs and to report back on what we can do to help in the future. The conference report provides $3.26 billion for NOAA. Funding is included to begin construction of 2 new research vessels and to refurbish 5 others. In addition, funding is included for repairs at the Beaufort, Oxford and Kasitsna coastal laboratories. Sufficient funding is provided to begin construction on regional National Marine Fisheries Service buildings in Hawaii and in Alaska. The bill provides funding to start building visitor facilities at national marine sanctuaries. The funding provided in this conference report for these purposes is a down-payment on the future of a robust Department of Commerce. I believe that the people at the department are its greatest asset and that these targeted funds will allow these professionals to better do their jobs for decades to come. In terms of advancing technology, in addition to the satellite programs, research vessels, radio spectrum management systems and other programs that I mentioned earlier, the bill provides $674.5 million for the National Institute for Standards and Technology, NIST. This amount aggressively funds scientific and technical research and services that are carried out in the NIST laboratories in Gaithersburg and in Boulder. The bill provides the current year funding level of $60.7 million for new ATP awards. The ATP is an industry-led, competitive, and cost-shared program to help the U.S. develop the next generation of breakthrough technologies in advance of its foreign competitors. ATP contracts encourage companies to undertake initial high-risk research that promises significant widespread economic benefits. Over one-half of the ATP awards go to small companies. In the aftermath of the bombings of Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the Department of State focused more on the security of our overseas infrastructure and peacekeeping missions than on the ``quality of life'' needs of its employees. Secretary of State Colin Powell should be commended for taking the approach that the morale of his employees does not have to be compromised in the name of safety. The conference report before the Senate today takes a good first step in that same direction. The conference report provides $7.36 billion in funding for the Department of State, an increase of $761 million above last year's appropriated level of $6.6 billion. This funding level includes $95 million for the Secretary's ``new hire'' initiative which will provide for an increase in 360 personnel, along with $12 million for training and recruitment, and $162 million in human resources enhancements. The conference report provides funding for recruitment, spousal employment, and civil service mobility. Funding also is provided for an additional 186 security personnel and for the replacement of obsolete equipment and motor vehicles overseas. The conference report before the Senate today also addresses a significant weakness in the State Department's information technology infrastructure. The worldwide web has become essential to the conduct of foreign policy. Yet, at this moment, most of the State Department's overseas posts are dependent on obsolete computers and communications equipment to process information, and most posts lack secure internet browser access for their employees. Full funding is provided in this conference report to bring the internet to the desk top of all employees by January 2003 and also to protect the Department's classified global computer system from cyber-terrorism. Finally, full funding in the amount of $1.3 billion is provided for worldwide security upgrades and $458 million for Embassy construction. Again, under Secretary Powell's leadership in the selection of General Williams to head the foreign buildings operations, millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have already been saved in the re-evaluation of current construction projects. This prudent action should expedite the construction needs highlighted in the Crowe report and put us ahead of schedule in addressing the security needs of our vulnerable facilities. Let me conclude by saying again this is a solid piece of legislation that addresses issues that affect the daily lives of all Americans. It is a good bill that balances the needs on many diverse missions, and the interests of members from both parties and both Houses. Every year, we face difficulties with respect to limited funding and multiple, sometimes competing, priorities. This year was no different. And, as in past years, the CJS conferees made those decisions in a bipartisan, bicameral, and judicious manner. This could not have happened without the assistance of Senator Gregg and the endless hours of work that both my and his staff put into drafting the conference report before the Senate today. Specifically, I would like to thank my clerk, Lila Helms, along with Jill Shapiro Long, Luke Nachbar, and Dereck Orr as well as Senator Gregg's minority clerk, Jim Morhard, along with Kevin Linsky, Katherine Hennessey, and Nancy Perkins. This is a great conference report before the Senate and with the help of my colleagues, I look forward to swift passage at the end of this debate. I thank the distinguished Chair. I again thank my distinguished ranking member. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I yield myself such time as is necessary.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Indeed, my colleague from Mississippi is correct. The Senate did include funding in the amount of $16,300,000 for the Choctaw Indians to construct their jail facility. It was the intention of the Senate that the tribe receive this needed funding for this project as noted in the conference agreement.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, generally speaking, is correct. We tortured over this. Bottom line, the White House opposed it. So question: Do we pass a bill that is going to be approved or do we pass a bill that is going to be disapproved? On page 171 of the report language: The conference agreement does not include language proposed in both the House and Senate bills regarding civil actions against Japanese corporations for compensation in which the plaintiff alleges that, as an American prisoner of war during World War II, he or she was used as slave or forced labor. The conferees understand that the Administration strongly opposes this language, and is concerned that the inclusion of such language in the act would be detrimental to the ongoing effort to enlist multilateral support for the campaign against terrorism. The conferees strongly agree that the extraordinary suffering and injury of our former prisoners of war deserve further recognition, and acknowledge the need for such additional consideration. In fairness to the position of the White House, we did have in 1951 the treaty of San Francisco settling the claims of prisoners of war against the Japanese Government. Maybe it wasn't adequate. For 50 years we have adhered to that treaty, and now with the terrorism attacks in the United States out with an affirmative action plan to win friends and influence people, to form a coalition, now is no time for us to take treaties and start abrogating them 50 years past or 1 year hence. The truth is, the U.S. Senate ratified that treaty. On this particular vote, the Senate bill was--the Senate bill--in the nature of an amendment to the House bill. The entire bill was in the nature of an amendment. That is how technically, under the rule cited by my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, it can be found as parliamentarily sound. That is what we had to do in order to get the bill approved. I am sorry these occasions arise. It was a measured judgment. We agree with our distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, but that is the best we could do under the circumstances.

Mr. HOLLINGS. It was just like President Lincoln, during the Civil War, when he put a vote to his Cabinet and all the Cabinet voted aye and President Lincoln voted no. And he said: The ``no'' vote prevails. That is what prevailed here. I yield the remainder of our time under the agreement. national domestic preparedness consortium

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kerry as a cosponsor of the Global Climate Change Act of 2001. The Senate Commerce Committee has worked hard to ensure that the Federal Government has the best research and information possible about global warming, as well as other types of climate changes. Our investments are bearing fruit and we are identifying ways to focus our research to help us make decisions now and in the decades ahead. During the 1980s, a number of us on the Committee became increasingly concerned about the potential threat of global warming and loss of the ozone layer. In 1989, I sponsored the National Global Change Research Act, which attracted support from many members still serving on the Commerce Committee. In 1990, after numerous hearings and roundtable discussions, Congress enacted the legislation, thereby creating the U.S. Global Climate Research Program. When we passed the Global Change Research Act, we knew it was the first step in investigating a very complex problem. We placed a lot of responsibility in NOAA, the scientific agency best suited to monitor and predict ocean and atmospheric processes. We need to renew this ocean research commitment to ensure we better understand the oceans, the engines of climate. The so-called ``wild card'' of the climate system, the oceans are capable of dramatic climate surprises we should strive to comprehend. I am glad to report that the research accomplished under the National Global Change Research Act has led to increased understanding of global climate change, as well as regional climate phenomena like El Nino/ Southern Oscillation, ENSO. We now have a better understanding of how the Earth's oceans, atmosphere, and land surface function together as a dynamic system, but we cannot stop there. Only recently, NOAA measured an important increase in temperature in all the world's oceans over a 40 year period. We need to understand the causes and how that will affect us. All this research ensures that federal and state decision-makers get better information and tools to cope with such climate related problems as food supply, energy allocation, and water resources. While we have learned an astonishing amount about climate and other earth/ocean interactions in only a decade, we have other critical questions that require further research to answer. Many of these questions are relevant not only to improving our scientific understanding, but also to contributing to our future social and economic well-being. For example, climate anomalies during the past two years, most directly related to the 1997-1998 El Nino event, have accounted for over $30 billion in impacts worldwide. When impacts from the recent floods in China are included, these direct losses could rise to $60 billion. This most recent El Nino claimed 21,000 lives, displaced 4.5 million people, and affected 82 million acres of land through severe flood, drought, and fire. When we better understand the global climate system, and its relationship to regional climate events like El Nino, we may be able to find ways, such as improved forecasting and early warning--to avoid some of the severe impacts. Understanding these and other impacts of climate change at the regional level is a critical step in preparing for these changes. We must maintain our commitment to research and further refine our existing modeling capabilities. The second critical need is planning for sea level rise and other inevitable results of climate change. It is costly in human lives and real dollars to manage our response in a crisis mode. Just as we needed to modernize our National Weather Service, we need to strengthen and modernize our National Climate Service, which can help the U.S. predict and plan for climate events. This includes establishing a national ocean and coastal observing system using the expertise and resources of a variety of federal agencies. In addition, this bill will help our coastal communities at risk from future climate-related hazards create plans that will help us adapt to such changes without catastrophic disruptions experienced in Alaska by my friend Senator Stevens. Not only do we need continued support for technological research and development, we must also consider the method in which this information is delivered to Congress. Before it was abolished in 1995, the Office of Technology Assessment, OTA, was responsible for providing Congress with balanced, independent scientific and technological advice. Since 1995, the function of the National Academy complex, particularly the National Research Council, NRC, has been forced to expand its role in providing research and information to Congress. However, the NRC studies have their limitations. The reports, often slow and expensive, provide limited opportunity for formal input and review by affected parties. Furthermore, unlike OTA, they often make specific recommendations rather than laying out a range of alternative policy options. The problems addressed by Congress are becoming increasingly complex. Science and technology play a crucial role in addressing problems in energy, defense, aviation and the environment. Without a permanent, non-partisan source of independent scientific and technical policy analysis, Congress become lost in the wealth of information provided by scientists, think tanks, and interest groups. The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 addresses this problem by creating a service that would provide ongoing science and technology advice to Congress, but avoid the criticisms leveled at OTA. It would economize on resources and personnel by utilizing the administrative services of the Library of Congress and the expertise of the National Research Ccouncil. Congressional requests for advice are overburdening NRC and threatening to compromise its independent stature as it is increasingly asked to fill the role of OTA. This provision would defer to NRC as the source of outside, unbiased advice and experts, but also provide an ongoing separate service to Congress. This service would also be asked to review the report of the Climate Change Action Task Force. The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 demonstrates that the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is serious about climate change, and I commend this Act to you.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my fellow South Carolinian, Terry Wooten, who will be confirmed today to the U.S. District Court for South Carolina. Terry Wooten graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of South Carolina in 1976 where he continued on to law school. Following law school, he worked in a private two-man firm that focused on criminal defense and personal injury cases. Two years later, he served as Assistant Solicitor for Richland County where he handled hundreds of cases including murders, criminal sexual conduct, robberies, drug offenses, burglaries, and many other local offenses for 4 years. As a result of his notable service as a local prosecutor, Senator Thurmond invited him to move to Washington and work as the chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff for 5 years. He then served with distinction as Assistant U.S. Attorney for South Carolina for 7 years. In this challenging position, he was assigned to the major drug and violent crime section. Judge Wooten excelled in this role and also served as the chief liaison between the relevant Federal agencies and the U.S. Attorney's office on drug and violent crime cases in the state. He is well known and respected by all local law enforcement agencies for his hard work with violent crime and drug offenders. In 1999, this humble, yet very capable man was chosen to be a magistrate judge where he did a marvelous job. Terry Wooten comes to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina judgeship with extensive experience as a State prosecutor in Richland County, as the Assistant U.S. Attorney, and as a Magistrate Judge. He was chosen for the position of Magistrate Judge by the judges of the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. I can think of no better testament to his character and qualifications and am pleased he will be joining their ranks. He will serve our judicial system well.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today I reintroduce legislation to clarify rules governing the takeover of U.S. Telecommunications providers by companies owned by foreign governments. The original rules in this area were established by statute in the 1930s, and while the law has not changed, the FCC's interpretations of this statute has. Today's legislation is almost identical to the legislation that I introduced last year on this topic. I am pleased to announce that this year I am joined in the effort by the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Billy Tauzin. In the intervening year the FCC has approved several transactions involving foreign governments. I am disappointed by these actions and believe that they involve a misreading of the current statute. The legislation I introduce today will bar outright the transfer or issuance of telecommunications licenses to providers who are more than 25 percent owned by a foreign government. It would also bar the transfer of such licenses to companies controlled by a foreign government. My reasons for introducing this legislation have not changed from last year. Nevertheless the events of the past year confirm more than ever my conviction that foreign governments should not be permitted to own U.S. telecommunications licenses.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, as a courtesy to President Bush and Secretary of Transportation Mineta, I am today introducing their proposed legislation to reauthorize hazardous materials programs. While I appreciate the Administration's willingness to offer a reauthorization plan, I disagree strongly with several of its provisions. I plan to work with other members of the Commerce Committee to write and introduce legislation to reauthorize the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act later this Congress. Every year, our Nation transports 4 billion tons of hazardous materials via 800,000 shipments. In 2000, there were 17,347 hazardous materials incidents related to transportation in the United States: 1,419 via air transportation, 14,861 via highway transportation, 1,052 via railway transportation, and 15 via water transportation. These incidents are mostly minor releases of chemicals; 244 incidents caused injuries, and there were 13 deaths, 12 deaths via highway transportation, and 1 death via railway transportation. Of course, one death is too many. That is why we must recommit ourselves to the protection of the brave workers who take on the risks of transporting these dangerous materials and the communities in which these products are produced and through which they are moved. I am concerned about several provisions of the administration plan, including one that would effectively eliminate the authority of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, to protect workers that handle and transport hazardous materials. It is important that workers are protected and appropriate standards for the handling of hazardous materials are established, including rules for personal protective equipment and the monitoring of exposure levels and medical conditions. Protecting the people that handle and transport these hazardous materials must remain paramount. The proposed legislation also increases from 2 to 4 years the time between reviews for exemptions from hazardous materials regulations. In our current security environment, creating more exemptions from hazardous materials regulations may not be the most prudent course of action. We also must maintain funding for non-profit organizations to train workers in the handling of hazardous materials. On another matter, the Administration plan also would repeal some of the requirements Congress has placed on the Department of Transportation in managing these hazardous materials programs. I would caution the Transportation Department not to seek repeal of the requirements and actions that we in Congress have requested of them. We mandated those actions for a reason, and we expect that they will be carried out. As I work with my colleagues to write a hazardous materials reauthorization bill, we will take into account the recently exposed vulnerabilities of hazardous materials to terrorist attacks. The 1,000 pages of Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations were designed primarily to promote safety during transportation, not to ensure security and reduce risks from terrorist attacks. Unattended parked vehicles and routing are just two examples of the security concerns associated with the transportation of hazardous materials. We are considering a range of options to address these security threats. We also must increase funding for training local emergency response units to handle hazardous materials accidents. While we may disagree over how to approach some of these hazardous materials issues, I thank the administration for offering their proposal. I look forward to working with them in the coming months to make the transportation of hazardous materials a safe endeavor for both hazardous materials workers and the public. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the administration's bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today I reintroduce legislation to clarify rules governing the takeover of U.S. Telecommunications providers by companies owned by foreign governments. The original rules in this area were established by statute in the 1930s, and while the law has not changed, the FCC's interpretations of this statute has. Today's legislation is almost identical to the legislation that I introduced last year on this topic. I am pleased to announce that this year I am joined in the effort by the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Billy Tauzin. In the intervening year the FCC has approved several transactions involving foreign governments. I am disappointed by these actions and believe that they involve a misreading of the current statute. The legislation I introduce today will bar outright the transfer or issuance of telecommunications licenses to providers who are more than 25 percent owned by a foreign government. It would also bar the transfer of such licenses to companies controlled by a foreign government. My reasons for introducing this legislation have not changed from last year. Nevertheless the events of the past year confirm more than ever my conviction that foreign governments should not be permitted to own U.S. telecommunications licenses.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. The document takes us from President Harry Truman right on up to the Johnson Administration. You can see that, in 1968-69, when I had the privilege of serving here and worked on that with George Mahon over on the House side, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee at that time. We cut it back again another $5 billion. We called over to Marvin Watson in December of 1968 because President Johnson was very sensitive about guns and butter--paying for the war in Vietnam and the Great Society. So we cut it back another $5 billion, and we ended up with a true surplus that particular year, a $2.9 billion surplus. But you can see the minus marks coming through. This particular chart shows that the Congressional Budget Office projected by March 14 of this year that we would have a $26.2 billion surplus. Truth: We ended up with a $133 billion deficit. Where do you find that truth out? Turn to page 20 of `Final Monthly Treasury Statement,' and you will see that at the beginning of fiscal year, 2001, we had a debt of $5,674,178,000,000. By the close of the fiscal year last month, the debt had already gone up to $5,807,463. So it has gone up some $133 billion. We ended up with a deficit of $133 billion. I ask unanimous consent that page 20 of the ``Final Monthly Treasury Statement'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, it is only on a Friday that we can make sense. That is my attempt here this morning with respect to the upcoming stimulus bill. We have more than enough deficit stimulus already in the pipeline, almost, without a stimulus bill. The point is that, yes, we are going to have to spend, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has pointed out, for home security. The Senator has outlined our spending on homeland defense to the tune of some $20 billion, including airport security; Amtrak security; Federal, State, and local antiterrorism enforcement; infrastructure security; highway security; clean and safe drinking water; bioterrorism response; border security. Actually, we have to add, necessarily, unemployment compensation and health care. So let's say definitely all of us will be supporting--and should-- deficit stimulus; otherwise, it makes no difference to the economy. It must be spent for home security with respect to the initiative of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. For starters, we are beginning this fiscal year with a horrendous deficit. I think of Mark Twain who once said that the truth is such a precious thing, it should be used very sparingly. That is the credo when we come to Government finance here in Washington. Specifically, we count Social Security revenues--I want to be specific in my limited time--twice. Sure, the government receives the well over $500 billion that payroll tax payers pay in to the Social Security Trust Fund. The American people paid that amount in fiscal year 2001 for a surplus of-- other than paying out the regular benefits, $163 billion. But the Social Security law, section 201, says, wait a minute, we don't want that money to languish and sit there, we want to gain interest on it. So we issue T-bills, you and I buy the T-bills--the money comes into the Government, and what do they do? They count that again as revenues. So you count the money first as it comes in from the payroll tax payers, and you count it a second time from the purchase of the Treasury bills, in compliance with section 201. Now, let's understand it. We ended the fiscal year with a $133 billion deficit. I encourage my fellow Senators and the American public to view the public debt to the penny as issued by the Secretary of the Treasury on September 28, 2001 at: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/ opdpenny.htm. Madam President, you can see that the national debt went up from the end of fiscal year 2000--the end of September in the year 2000--from 5 trillion 674 billion some odd dollars to 5 trillion 806 billion some odd dollars. It will show on the chart a $133 billion deficit. That is verified in the final monthly Treasury statement made for fiscal year 2001. You can access this report at: http://www.treasury.gov. Madam President, immediately it highlights a half truth because they show a surplus, and that is how they talk about the surplus and how it is diminishing. But don't bother with that. Go down to page 20, the particular culmination of all their moneys, and you find out how much revenue the Government took in and how much was spent. Every year since Lyndon Johnson's day, we have ended up with a deficit. Not just the $133 billion deficit as of the last fiscal year, only a month ago. I will ask unanimous consent to have this particular document printed in the Record, the budget realities.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that ``The Debt to the Penny'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, you can see we are already in the red $8.5 billion. The debt is on the way up. What had happened in August was the Congressional Budget Office came over to the Budget Committee and Mr. Crippin projected a $104 billion deficit for fiscal year 2002. In the last couple of weeks, he has come back and amended that to some $140 billion more. He said the downturn has been far more extreme than he ever expected. So he adds another $140 billion to the $104 billion, which is $244 billion. We start off with $244 billion, without the stimulus, without the moneys for defense that we are bound to pass before we leave in the next few weeks, without the moneys for education that we are bound to spend, without the moneys for agriculture for the farm bill that we are prepared to provide. I am looking at all of that, and I made this comment at the Cabinet table just last week to the Vice President--the President had to excuse himself to receive a head of state--but I said: Mr. Vice President, we are starting off now knowing at the very beginning of fiscal year 2002 that we have over some $300 billion in the pipeline of stimulus that people are not looking at. I will bet anybody any amount of money anytime--give me whatever odds you want--that the deficit for fiscal year 2002 will exceed $300 billion. I want to see my colleagues in the Senate take me up on that bet. We are still talking surpluses, is my point, and we know the truth is that we are going to have at least a $300 billion deficit. Yes, let us take care of home security, if it is $20 billion, $25 billion, $30 billion--whatever it is. But none of these fast forward tax cuts and calling it stimulus, because it is a political opportunity: We will give you what spending we want, and we will take what tax cuts we want. That game has to stop. The cold sobriety of the moment is, this country is at war. We have to sacrifice, and we will sacrifice in the context of the economy, trying to hold the line as much as we can; specifically, let's not take anymore loss of revenues and call it stimulus. Let us go forward with strengthening home security and appreciate the reality that we are in trouble. The ox is in the ditch. We have fooled ourselves all year long. I pointed it out time and again. I have such a high regard for our distinguished chairman in the Senate, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who is doing an outstanding job as our chairman, that I hate to appear as the dog in the manger constantly bringing up the record, the record, the record, showing the deficit, the deficit, the deficit. But we have had a deficit. We ended up with one, as I said we would, as of last year of $133 billion. We are already going into the red, and we have not even started the level of spending that will be required. Let us hold tight to home security, unemployment compensation, and health care, and stop right there to hold down the long-term interest rates. That is what is stultifying any kind of economic comeback from the recession we are in. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, we are fiddling while Rome burns. The headline in this morning's Washington Post, ``Airport Security Crackdown Ordered,'' particularly galls this Senator. I have been with the FAA since its creation. I have been on the Commerce Committee for right at 35 years. I worked with the old Civil Aeronautics Board. We tried our best to get this entity in ship shape over many years. It was only the year before last that we finally got the monies that should have gone to airport safety and improvement to go to airport safety and improvement. We had, in 1988, Pan Am 103. We had extensive hearings. And what did we come up with? What we came up with is exactly what they write in the editorial here, that what we really need is more training and more supervision--``help wanted.'' And then we had further hijackings. We had the TWA Flight 800 in 1996, and we had further hearings. We had the Gore commission. What did they recommend? The same old, same old of more training and more supervision, more oversight. Got to get stern about this. Crackdowns. Last year, we passed the FAA authorization bill. And what did we call for? We called for more supervision, more training, and then 5,000 people were killed. And we have folks over on the House side, most respectfully, who do not understand that we have lost these 5,000. Terrorists came along with cardboard knives and committed mass murder, and everything else like that, but they say don't worry about what happened on 9-11. What happened just this last week? Last week, a man boarded a plane with a pistol down in New Orleans. The individual remembered he had the gun and said: Oh, my heavens. Then he turned it over to the airline crew, or otherwise. And the same airline security firm that was fined last year in Philadelphia for hiring criminals is still hiring criminals. The Senate reacted. We got together. We had hearings. We had the airline pilots, the airline crews, the assistants, the airline executives--everyone connected--and they endorsed the approach of federalization; that this was a public safety role, need and responsibility. This coalition determined resolutely that we could not toy with this anymore after that tremendous loss on 9-11 and continue to play games with more oversight and more supervision and more training. And ordering crackdowns: Can you imagine that, ordering a crackdown 7 weeks afterwards? Why not that afternoon, that night, or the next morning? A crackdown? Oh, no, they had to think of the airlines first, while the airlines themselves are begging for safety because they realize that ensuring passenger safety is essential to reviving the industry. The Senate passed our bill 100-zip; every Republican, every Democrat voted for it. Our measure is, more than anything, an airline stimulus bill. Americans are not going to get on these planes as long as there is fear, and we have the insecurity that we have. They are not going to get on the planes as long as they have U.S. Air Force planes flying over them ready to shoot them down. With our bill that stops immediately. Once you secure that cockpit door, not to be opened in flight, there is no reason for hijackings because you can't. All you can do is start a fight in the cabin, knowing that the order to the pilot is to land at the nearest airport where law enforcement is going to be there and you are going to prison. That is the Israeli El Al approach. We outlined it. We provided the diagram for the El Al plan that I still have. If I had time this morning, I would show it. It is a perimeter defense. In 30 years El Al has not had a hijacking. Don't talk to me about European private airport security. Sure, European security personnel is better paid because all the European folks are supported for retirement and health care. These minimum wage folks have no retirement, no health care, no security, no anything. And the security firms are worried that they may quit. They all are quitting. That has been the experience at the Hartsfield airport in Atlanta. There has been over 400-percent turnover there. They don't stay there longer than 3 months. Yet the opposition to real airport security has stories going around. The reason I came to the floor is to again bring attention to the commonsensical, thorough, and bipartisan fashion with which the Senate approached airline security. They are still talking about the Democratic bill on the House side. You can't get it any more bipartisan unless we are going to let the pages vote. Maybe we ought to do that. I mean, can't we get the truth to the American people that we are ready, willing, able, and glad to pay for it, $2.50 per flight? The polls show people would be willing to pay $25 added to a ticket, glad to do it. But we can take care of it with $2.50 so there is no question about being paid for. The fundamentals of safety have to be hammered home to our colleagues on the House side. We are not playing games anymore. Noone wants to contract out the FBI. I wonder what the President wants? We were told a month ago that the President would go along with our bill. We felt absolutely secure. But they have some political machinations going on over there with Mr. Armey and Mr. DeLay. And Mr. Armey says: I don't want them all to join a union. Well, they all can join the unions under the private contractor. In fact, a third of them have. The reason the other two-thirds have not, is they can't read the application in order to join. They are refugees and immigrants. The application is in English. Go ahead to the airports. I go through there regularly, almost every week. They just cannot speak the language. That is no fault of their own. They are getting what jobs they can. But we can't do this with Americans' and the airline travelers' safety at risk. We would not contract out the Capitol Police or the Border Patrol or the Secret Service or the FBI or defense. What is the matter with the Government? You just heard about a bill--all the defense workers at the Charleston naval shipyard, all the ``navalees'' belong to a union. You just heard the majority leader talk about laying down to conservative interests. I am not talking pro-union or anti-union. I am saying federal public safety officers cannot strike and they can be fired. This particular Senator supported President Reagan when he had to take that approach with the airline pilots. But we fiddle while Rome burns. Would we ever not just contract out? Would we ever give our safety to foreign corporations? Can you imagine taking the defense and contracting it out, or the FBI, to the Swedish company or the Secret Service to the Netherlands company? These are the firms responsible for airline security now. The airlines get the lowest bidder, and they couldn't care less. That English company, they were fined for hiring criminals and falsifying their background checks. And since the time of the court fines, they have continued to hire criminals and not give the background checks. Yet they say: Well, let's see what they want. Let's get flexibility. You aren't going to have flexibility with the FBI or Secret Service or the Capitol Police. There is not flexibility. It is safety. That is what they have to understand over there, that we are not going to give it to the foreign companies. We are not going to have the momentary safety checks or the European system. We are going to have the El Al, the Israeli system that has worked, proof positive, for 30 years. Once you secure that cockpit and they know there can't be a hijacking, you can take all these F-15s and F-16s and National Guard reserves that are flying all night long over Washington and New York and wherever and say: Save the money and save the time. Let them go back to their work. There is not going to be a hijacking. There is not going to be a plane shot down. If there is an attempted hijacking, it is down to the first landing and on to jail. That is where they are headed. They know that. So our terrorist adversaries will find some other way, like the mail and anthrax, but not the airlines. Security has to be comprehensive. Under El Al, they check thoroughly and rotate the screeners from the boarding gates, to the tarmac and to cleaning out the aisles. I flew out of Dulles last week. And what do you do? You get seat 9A. So I can call out to my friend who has been working on the tarmac for the last 2 years who is in cahoots with me as a terrorist. I say: Paste a pistol underneath seat 9A, loaded. I get on. I got through all the screeners and everything else. And afterwards, they wonder why, because you have to have the same kind of security on the tarmac. You have to have the same security for the people who cater. You have to have the same security with the people who clean. This is a safety/security responsibility and not a game of playing around on whether they are going to join a union or not. A third of airline security workers join unions now and have the right to strike. Yes, they can join our union, but they can't strike and they can be fired. On contracting out, 669,000 civilian personnel work in our defense forces and at the Pentagon. Some of them were lost on September 11. Give us a Senate bill or something very similar to it because that is the overwhelming sentiment. The captain of the airline pilots appeared with us again yesterday and said: Please pass the Senate version so we can get on and move with it and get the cockpit doors secured, get thorough background checks, and then be ready, willing, and able to give the watch list to the screeners so they will know what to look for. At the present time, you wouldn't give the watch list to these foreign companies, agents at minimum wage. You wouldn't give it to them. You would try to keep that security knowledge to yourself and send somebody out. If I had a watch list and was trying, I would have an FBI agent at the likely airports where they may board, but I wouldn't give it to the present screeners. We have to clean that out entirely and come down to the reality that this is totally bipartisan. It is not in the sense of trying to be pro-labor or anti-union, pro- Democrat or pro-Republican, or anything else like that. We have finally learned at least one lesson from 9-11--that we can't play around any longer with airline security. We have to get on with it and not fiddle here some 7 weeks as ``Rome" burns, and we wonder what to do and put all this political pressure on to change the folks around and not bring it up and not allow them to vote common sense. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, rapid population growth and urbanization place substantial pressure on the transportation, sanitation, health care, and education infrastructure in our country and throughout the world. It is important to recognize the impact that these forces have on our natural resources and our quality of life. I applaud Governor Hodges for proclaiming the week of October 21 to October 27 of this year as World Population Awareness Week in the great State of South Carolina. I ask that his proclamation be printed in the Record. The proclamation follows: Proclamation by Governor Jim Hodges Whereas, world population today exceeds 6.1 billion and is estimated to continue to increase by 1 billion every 13 years; and Whereas, rapid population growth can have negative environmental, economic, and social consequences; and Whereas, working to sustain an equitable balance between the world's population, environment, and resources contributes to combating poverty, improving maternal and child health, and ensuring the continued prosperity of our state and nation. Now, therefore, I, Jim Hodges, Governor of the Great State of South Carolina, do hereby proclaim October 21-27, 2001, as World Population Awareness Week throughout the state and encourage all South Carolinians to work together to raise awareness of voluntary and responsible solutions to rapid population growth.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill brought forward today by Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee. As a member of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, I am well aware of the competing priorities funded in this bill including health care for the disadvantaged, medical research, education, Head Start, child care, and job training. The subcommittee faces a difficult task every year accommodating these important priorities, but behind the leadership of the chairman and ranking member, I believe we have produced a bill that balances these priorities. The bill provides $1.343 billion for community health centers. The weakening economy and skyrocketing cost of insurance raise the likelihood that thousands of Americans will lost their health benefits. These facts, combined with the persistent lack of access to care in many rural and urban communities, make it imperative that we strengthen the ability of community health centers to serve our Nation's underserved and uninsured patients. Last year, Senator Bond and I launched the REACH initiative to double funding for community health centers by 2005. The $175 million increase provided in the bill with support from 67 Senators keeps the Senate on track to meet our goal. From cancer to vision to biomedical imaging, the work of the Subcommittee to invest in the National Institutes of Health, (NIH), has led to improvements in the quality of life for countless Americans. I strongly support the unprecedented investment in the NIH made in this bill. This basic and clinical research is critical to the advancement of medical science and human health. Over the past 30 years, the 5-year cancer survival rate has risen from 38 percent to 59 percent. This means that approximately 8,400,000 people are alive today as a result of progress in cancer research. Our investment in the NIH has been returned many times over. Every dollar spent at the NIH returns over $7 in lower medical costs and increased economic productivity. Advances in the treatment of cardiovascular disease between 1970 and 1990 have had a positive economic value of $1.5 trillion annually. Still the costs of disease tallies as high as $180 billion a year for cancer and $38 billion a year for vision ailments. The investment made by this bill will cut into the amounts our government and our citizens spend fighting and treating these diseases. In addition, it is important that we open the competition for biomedical research to institutions from all parts of the country. This bill includes $200 million for the National Center for Research Resources' Institutional Development Awards, a program that helps States like South Carolina overcome the geographic concentration of NIH awards by developing the infrastructure needed to compete for biomedical research funding. I would also like to point out the importance of the cancer programs funded out of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cancer Registries can be a powerful tool in the war against cancer. We know that early detection of cancer saves lives and saves the health care system millions of dollars. With budgets getting tighter in States across the country, cancer registries give public health agencies clear guidance of where to target scarce resources for prevention activities. I am told that the registry in South Carolina is like many of the other registries. It has the ability to collect sophisticated and accurate data, but lacks the resources to fully analyze and act upon the data it collects. The true potential of cancer registries cannot be realized until a larger investment in the program is made. The South Carolina breast and cervical cancer detection program, known as the Best Chances Network, just celebrated its 10th anniversary. Over that time, the program provided more than 110,000 cancer screenings to low-income women and have detected 1,400 cancers, saving countless lives. By all accounts the only problem with the program is that it cannot serve all eligible women. The subcommittee also did an admirable job funding education programs. The bill contains a $1.5 billion increase for title I. This substantial increase is important because the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will put new mandates and higher expectations on our nation's schools. In turn, our schools should expect us to meet our mandates and provide them with the resources we promised. The $10.2 billion provided in the bill will move us closer towards fully funding title I, a goal that 79 members of this body voted to affirm earlier this year. The bill contains $3 billion for State grants for improving teacher quality. It is critical to the future of our education system that we recruit our best and brightest to the teaching field and make efforts to retain the quality teachers already present in our system. This funding gives States the flexibility to improve teacher compensation, hire new teachers to reduce class size or provide additional training or mentoring to current teachers. This bill addresses the crumbling infrastructure in many of our schools by providing $925 million for school construction. Seventy- eight percent of public schools in South Carolina reported a need to upgrade or repair a school building to good overall condition. I am pleased that the bill will help our schools address some of the needs of their facilities and thank the chairman of the subcommittee for the leadership he has shown in this area. Finally, the bill increases funding for higher education programs. The amounts provided in this bill will bring the maximum Pell Grant total to $4,000. We also provide for a $75 million increase for the TRIO programs. Since 1965, an estimated two million students have graduated from college with the special assistance and support of our Nation's TRIO Programs. These programs have been successful. Studies have found that students in the Upward Bound program are four times more likely to earn an undergraduate degree than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in TRIO, and students in the TRIO Student Support Services program are more than twice as likely to remain in college than those students from similar backgrounds who did not participate in the program. I am pleased that this bill will allow more eligible students to benefit from the TRIO Programs. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.