Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I have a number of questions about the substance, scope and procedure of section 1012 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. I am concerned that there are some significant issues which this provision has not addressed, notwithstanding its noble intentions. Would the gentleman be able to clarify some of these issues for me?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Would the gentleman please explain how the Secretary of DOT will determine whether an individual seeking an original or renewed license presents a security risk?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I am troubled by the lack of due process protections for the applicant. What is the gentleman's opinion on this subject?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Finally, isn't there a concern that foreign drivers transporting hazmat present an equal, if not a greater, security risk than that presented by U.S. drivers? If so, how will we deal with foreign drivers because they do not appear to be covered by section 1012.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Does the section make clear what standards will be applied to determine if a security risk is presented by an individual?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I am concerned that the review process could be delayed and a person seeking renewal of a hazmat license could be unable to work due to matters beyond his or her control.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their attention to this matter and, again, appreciate the assistance they have provided on this project over the years. Sudden Oak Death Syndrome

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Cochran for recognizing the increasing threat posed by emerging and exotic diseases to animals and crops through out the United States and providing the Agricultural Research Service an increase of $6,782,000 for fiscal year 2002. I also want to confirm that the Committee intends for at least $500,000 of these funds to be used to meet the higher operating costs presented by the new state-of- the-art ARS U.S. Vegetable Lab in Charleston, South Carolina.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Such progress would not have been possible without the support I have received over the years from both sides of the aisle on this project. The new laboratory will play an important role in the ARS mission of conducting research to solve regional and national problems in the production and protection of vegetable crops. This research is critical to the continued production of crops in a sustainable agricultural economy.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, on financial matters, our colleague, Mr. Corzine, has an unparalleled record. He worked his way to the top of the financial world on his own merit. He started as a bond trader and ended up 20 years later as chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, one of Fortune magazine's 10 best companies in America. In terms of economics and business, he knows of what he speaks. After conquering the hurdles of the financial world, he has brought his expertise to the Senate. Albert Hunt outlined Jon Corzine's background and philosophy on the economic stimulus package being considered by Congress in the Wall Street Journal on October 11, 2001, and I ask this article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Wall Street Journal, Thurs., Oct. 11, 2001] A Senator Who Has Met a Payroll politics and people (By Albert R. Hunt) Which person is better for advice on stimulating the economy: A professor who has spent most of his adult life on the public payroll, or a business executive who headed one of the world's most successful investment-banking firms? Phil Gramm or Jon Corzine? These two senators have decidedly different approaches to an increasingly faltering economy in the wake of last month's terrorism. Sen. Corzine, a freshman Democrat from New Jersey who used to be chairman of Goldman Sachs, wants a $150-billion-a-year stimulus package focused on security spending initiatives and temporary tax cuts to boost consumption. Republican Sen. Gramm, an economics professor at Texas A&M before his 23 years in Congress, wants large and permanent individual and corporate tax cuts directed at upper-income Americans. President George W. Bush moved toward Mr. Gramm's position when he declared additional stimulus should be limited to more tax cuts. This appeals to the GOP's ``pitchfork-and-torch'' crowd-- indeed, Mr. Gramm is its intellectual leader in Congress. But the Corzine approach is eminently preferable. It is closer to the goals articulated by congressional budget committees, as well as the public and private testimony of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin: Economic stimulus should pump money quickly into the economy on a temporary basis, not adversely affect longer- term fiscal discipline. President Bush's focus tax cuts fails those tests; Sen. Gramm's proposals are worse. ``The overarching issue,'' said Sen. Corzine over breakfast this week, ``is to get a lot of fiscal stimulus now and avoid fiscal disaster in the long term.'' A corporate tax cut now, the investment-banker-turned- senator notes, is misdirected: It rewards previous investments more than encouraging new ones. Better would be short-term accelerated depreciation to encourage new investments. The Bush administration is pushing a ``middle class'' tax cut to reduce the 27% tax rate next year to 25%. That's bogus. This rate applies to everyone with taxable income above $46,700. So for a construction worker making $65,000, with $50,000 of taxable income, the tax cut would total $66. But for anyone making more than $150,000, with taxable income of over $112,850, it'd be a $1,300 tax cut. As economic stimulus, this idea flounders even more on efficacy than equity. Studies demonstrate lower-income people spend more of their disposable income, and what this economy needs is more consumption. Sen. Corzine, worth $400 million earlier this year, rejects the GOP's upper-income-oriented tax cuts: ``The wealthy, including myself, are not going to change spending habits with such tax cuts.'' Making new tax reductions permanent would aggravate persistently high long-term interest rates, he asserts. The opposition to temporary tax cuts by the likes of Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, is situational; only a few years ago Mr. Hubbard co-authored a paper arguing ``temporary investment incentives can have even larger short-run impacts on investment than permanent investment incentives.'' Further, the initiatives launched by the White House would, Sen. Corzine notes, ``give almost nothing to the people who've been in the front lines--the cops, the firemen who climbed those stairs at the World Trade Center, the grunts who did the cleanup work. That's wrong.'' Sen. Gramm questions whether extending jobless claims ``has anything to do with stimulus.'' It's true the unemployed won't put any added money in the secret foreign bank accounts Sen. Gramm has so eagerly protected, but they'll do something more contributory with the money: They'll spend it. The stinginess of the Bush proposals on this score is stunning. If the economic downturn is comparable to the recession of the early 1990s, the president's proposed $5 billion limited extended jobless claims would be less than one-fifth the $28 billion spent on such measures a decade ago, calculates Bob Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Sen. Corzine is sympathetic to support for expanded jobless benefits and more health insurance coverage for the unemployed--although he doesn't suggest, as the White House does, that we should take some of it out of the Children's Health Insurance Program. He thinks a better approach, however, is temporary ``revenue sharing'' with fiscally pressed state and local governments, which would head off counterproductive budget cuts or tax hikes. ``If we don't do this, much of the stimulus at the federal level will be cut away by state and local tax increases,'' he says. He favors major spending investments to bolster the deteriorating economy, geared to the terrorist threat. These include a new federal aviation authority air-control system; major investments in transportation infrastructure, such as bridges and tunnels (``all of which could be terrorist targets''); and assistance for more sophisticated communications systems for local police and fire departments. These spending priorities, he declares, should all be with an eye to greater security. The former banker is leery of bailing out the myriad industries lining up at the federal trough. After a few changes he voted for the airline bailout--``there are tons of airline jobs in New Jersey''--but fears it wasn't well crafted. He'd make at least one exception: You've got to do something for the insurance industry, otherwise insurance rates will be off the charts and unavailable.'' On tax cuts, he would support a tax rebate for the lowest- income people--some 30 million lower-income workers didn't get any cuts in the tax bill enacted this year--but is pushing what he believes is much better idea: a two year ``holiday'' on a portion of employees' payroll taxes. It would disproportionately go to those most likely to spend it and, he argues, ``have a much bigger ongoing effect on stimulus than a one-shot rebate.'' Jon Corzine agrees generally with his former partner, Bob Rubin, on the shape of any stimulus, but disagrees on the size. ``Bob is too cautious,'' he worries. ``If we're too cautious on the short end, it will come back to haunt us on the back end.'' But they're in complete agreement that as central as the need for short-term assistance is the need for long-term fiscal discipline. This is not possible without modifying the huge tax cuts for the wealthy slated to take effect over the next decade. Warns the former top Wall Street executive: ``If we don't change the back end of those tax cuts we will have a fiscal train wreck no matter what we do now.''

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, with respect to the three Rockefeller amendments, one has to do with safety and security of onboard supplies that the flight personnel and pilots are concerned with. The other Rockefeller amendment has to do with property and passengers. We have prescribed, everyone can see it on page 18 of the managers' amendment, whereby every bit of passenger luggage, cargo, and property will be screened. This provision would guarantee that all objects are checked, as I read it, by adding language on page 18, insert ``cargo, carry-on, and checked baggage, other articles.'' The other articles would be anything else. So there would be no dispute on that particular amendment. With the third amendment, the reference is to the Secretary ensuring that the training curriculum is developed in consultation with Federal law enforcement. The Federal law enforcement has the expertise necessary. We want to make sure of this. The distinguished Senator and chairman of our Aviation Subcommittee, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, wants to make sure of it. I send these three amendments to the desk and ask the clerk to report each.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendments Nos. 1866, 1867, and 1868, en bloc

Mr. HOLLINGS. Argenbright is a contractor at Logan Airport, at Newark Airport, and at Dulles, all three airports from which the planes on that disastrous day were taken over. The article relayed how the firm was fined for misgivings and misdeeds at Philadelphia. It says Argenbright, a subsidiary of AHL Services, provides security workers at 17 of the Nation's 20 largest airport hubs, including Newark, Logan, and Dulles, where the hijacked flights originated. The company is hired by the airlines. Incidentally, the major amendment we have is for airline worker benefits. I thought we passed a $15 billion package so we could stabilize the airlines so they could continue the health care and pay for their workers. But, no, we have to have an additional amendment to take care of the unemployed airline workers. I do not know what the $15 billion did, whether or not it took care of the airline bonuses that we all know about. Let me read. In the Philadelphia case, Argenbright hired more than 1,300 untrained checkpoint screeners from 1995 through 1998 without checking their backgrounds. Among these employees were dozens of criminals. That is in quote marks--``dozens of criminals.'' According to the Government's sentencing memorandum, Argenbright falsely certified the company had done the background checks and fraudulently charged the airlines for this work. In other words, they lied about the background checks and charged the airlines for the background checks they lied about. Yet they hold us up for an entire month because we want to prevent further negligence. As has been stated, we had a pretty sobering lesson with Pan Am 103 and we knew how security was lax at that particular time, so we were working to strengthen it. We were going to have higher standards. We were going to have more training. We were going to have supervision and more pay. And then in 1996, TWA 800. Guess what. We had all kinds of studies, commissions, hearings. All this debate about contracts has been ongoing now for 15 years. What did we come up with? More higher standards, more training hours, more supervision, and more pay. But you have to contract out. No one would ever think contracting would help the Border Patrol. No one would think of contracting out the FBI. No one would ever think about contracting out the security and protection of the President, the Secret Service. No one would think about contracting out our security, the Capitol Police. Walking into the Capitol today, I was asked, should we get the National Guard around the Capitol? We have the Capitol Police. They are not only adequate, they are more than adequate. They have been doing an outstanding job. We don't need any more National Guard troops running around and everything else of that kind. Terrorists would do better than getting a Senator or two or a bunch of them. They would be replaced by the Governor by sundown, so you couldn't get rid of them. In any event, here we come. No one would think about contracting out the Customs agents or any of these other security workers or the 669,000 civilian workers in defense. They are Civil Service, they get health care. They get retirement benefits. They are stable. They are reliable. They are professional. They are accountable. That is what we are trying to do in a bipartisan fashion. Who is holding the Senate up? The lying, thieving lobbyists who said contract, contract, contract out. We have federalization in the bill. I want to see who comes to take it out of the bill. The unmitigated gall of that crowd running around here after learning what we've learned for 15 years, and particularly after the September 11 hijackings and terrorist killings, they have the unmitigated gall to say that is what we ought to do again. They don't have any idea of security. They have an idea of their political issue and their reelection because they pledged to downsize, get rid of the Government--the Government is not the solution, the Government is the problem. So they can't viscerally, ideologically, or philosophically, even think in terms of security. They are like a chicken with the line in the sand: In my reelection, I pledged to get rid of the Government, and I'm not about to vote for 28,000 professionals. If we get the bill to the House, we can negotiate what is necessary. The traveling public are ready, willing, and anxious to pay for it. Heavens above, we ought to at least take away the threat of being shot down. The day before yesterday, and yesterday again, somebody hands a note to the pilot, and good gosh, you have F-16s, A- 10s, F-15s flying above ready to shoot you down. Who wants to get on a plane and get shot down? This bill, S. 1447, will take care of that. We lock the cockpit door; it is never open. Let me emphasize, the chief pilot of El Al said: My wife can be assaulted in the cabin, but I don't open that door. The intended hijacker knows he will not be able to hijack the plane. He can start a fight. He can maybe kill some people. He is going to get killed himself. You can see how the traveling public is ready to take them out. They did on the flight yesterday. They did on the flight the day before. More power to these patriotic Americans. The people understand. When is the Senate going to understand and cut out this dillying around and get together to pass security, safety? It is unheard of that they would resist, having learned from all of these other experiences, having learned from September 11 to not even give it a second thought, just bite their teeth and say: We are not going to have the Federal Government do anything. We don't trust government. I think we were elected to get the Government to work. And we have tried the so-called contracting already. We can easily lock that door. That does away with the expense of everybody being on alert, flying planes around. No one put that cost down in defense, but we will get the Defense appropriations measure, and they will find out, as a result of our dillying around, we have a charge now for guard units that are alerted--to do what? To shoot down domestic flights. Why? Because of the Senate. We should have gotten off our backsides and seen reality and been ready, by gosh, to get moving here on an airline security measure. Yes, we federalize. We are proud of it. It is taken care of. It is paid for. The pilots are for it. The executives are for it. The flight attendants are for it. The municipal association is for it. Everybody is for it except the lobbyists, who want to continue to cheat and continue to defraud. Isn't it grand? We have put up with it long enough. There is no reason we can't get through this bill today. We have two or three amendments. I think we can temporarily set aside Carnahan. We have the final vote at 1:35, so that time has been changed because the distinguished cardinal is coming to town and we have a prayer service. So we will go along and put it off for another hour, but they can debate that amendment. Everyone knows its merit. Otherwise, we ought to have two or three amendments here this morning and move ahead this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we all realize this morning that a month has passed since the disaster of September 11, and we still are confronted with the need for airline security, as the headlines in Roll Call state, ``Airport Firms Form Alliance''; as well as, ``Baggage Screening Companies Take Case to the Hill.'' So one month after this fanatical killing of 5,000 to 6,000 Americans, thousands more casualties, and as many as 10,000 children left without a parent, some without 2 parents, we are being delayed by the contractors and the lobbyists. One of them particularly, cited in this case, has banded together in a lobbying drive that so far has succeeded--Argenbright. There is also an article in the Miami Herald published Thursday, September 13 about their efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the article in full be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this particular amendment has to do with waiver authority. At the time of the terrorism of 9/11, there were body parts in flight and prepared for flight in Hawaii to be used, of course, in life-saving organ operations. It was pointed out that those particular operations had to be stalled and set aside. This measure will provide emergency power to the Secretary to make a waiver for this reason in case planes have to be grounded, as was properly done on 9/ 11. I urge for the adoption of that amendment. It has been cleared on both sides.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1877

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I too am in agreement with the Senator from Arizona and stand with him in support of funding the needed air marshal program. airlines honoring airline tickets

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from Montana for his leadership and help in enhancing security with respect to airline travel.