Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senators from Florida, both of them--Senator Graham, I am sure, will be here momentarily. I think he is on the way to the floor. I am double-checking that now. The junior Senator, Senator Bill Nelson, was with the President in Florida. Maybe that is where Senator Graham is also. But that is why they are not here to be heard. It is very vital to their interests to be heard. Barring that, let me say defending Fat Albert has always been a role of this particular subcommittee. Time and again, since its institution over 15 years ago, we have had reports--the most recent one, of course, is the one referred to by my distinguished colleague from North Dakota--the Report of the Advisory Panel on Radio Marti and TV Marti. While it found it might not be economically feasible, I read the finding: TV Marti's broadcasts are technically sound and contain essential information not otherwise available to the Cuban people. Persistent Cuban jamming does limit viewership on the island, however. These broadcasts could prove vital to the United States interests and to the welfare of the Cuban people now and in the future. True it is, it comes on in the middle of the night, 3 in the morning, but then it goes on to early morning when it is generally picked up, except for that year's period when Fat Albert was down. Our distinguished friend Larry King made himself famous. I used to be on his program when it was out on the west coast at 1 in the morning. It was only, what, 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock in California. But he came on at midnight to 3 in the morning and got so famous that we can't get him off the air now. He is on the east coast at 9 o'clock every night. I don't think he should be off the air. I think it is wonderful programming. So my emphasis is on the timing of it. We are going to have these debates back and forth on this particular amendment. As I understand the unanimous consent agreement, we are going to vote on the Smith amendment after a half hour equally divided, from 5 to 5:30. We are going to vote at 5:30 on the Smith amendment. Then we'll have the other votes with respect to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Idaho relative to the International Crime Commission. The Fat Albert amendment, which the Senator from North Dakota has up, is subsequent thereto. Having the floor, I cannot pass the opportunity, because as my friend from West Virginia carries around the Constitution, I carry around the record of waste. I heard the word ``waste'' but it was in regard to about $10 million. Let's talk about billions--$1 billion a day waste. I hold in my hand the public debt to the penny, put out by the Department of Treasury as of this morning. We are already in the red this fiscal year, which is going to end now in about 3 weeks' time, $100 billion. That didn't happen overnight. I guess $74 billion came from that tax cut--that didn't help the economy--and the rest just followed suit. But that is another debate to be had at a different time. But let's pay attention to the fact that the public debt is $100 billion. If anybody wants to get into this yin-yang about the public debt and the Government debt--yes, the public debt has gone down $59 billion but the Government debt has gone up $159 billion. So it is paying off your Visa card with your MasterCard. That gets people confused. But there is not any confusion on the actual figure put out by the Treasury Department of $100 billion. Under President Bush's budget and under the CBO budget, both of them submitted within the last 3 weeks, they estimate a deficit ending the fiscal year, that is September 30--today is the 10th, 20 days from now, of $123 billion or $124 billion. Consequently, since we ran a deficit last year of $23.2 billion, and we are going to run a deficit this year--where is the surplus that everyone talks about? I have been on the floor since January saying: Wait a minute, there is not any surplus, there is not any surplus. But everybody was talking surplus to get that tax cut. Now they are all running around saying where has the money gone? The big waste is the interest cost, when the debt goes up, up and away, from $5.674 trillion at the end of the last fiscal year, to now, this minute, it is at $5.774 trillion. The interest costs necessarily go up. As that interest goes up, the waste goes up. Having talked about waste, let me say a word about the current account deficit, or the deficit in the balance of trade. This is a favorite subject of mine. It used to be just $17 billion. Monitoring that $81 billion deficit in the balance of trade with Japan, that $17 billion is down to $7 billion; or that $10 billion, monitoring the $84 billion deficit in the balance of trade with the People's Republic of China, is down to $7 billion. There is a question about this particular International Trade Commission receiving more money. I have found from some 34, almost 35 years' experience, that the International Trade Commission is a gimmick. The reason I call it a gimmick, advisedly, is through hard experience. Time and again, corporate America has taken its trade violation case against Japan, against China etc., to the International Trade Administration in the Department of Commerce, and they have found a dumping case, that the goods are being sold at less than cost. I have a Lexus. Let's say that Lexus costs $35,000. Go buy that same Lexus in Tokyo, Japan. Its cost is $45,000. The Japanese article imported into this country is sold here for much less. Time and time again it is proven that it is being sold at less than cost. Take the Kodak case. What happens? That is what I call a gimmick. Then they go for a fix before the Finance Committee of the Senate to find out, even though there is dumping, if there is injury. That is the question before the International Trade Commission. And they file for injury. It is very interesting that there is now a steel case the President is disturbed about because over 20 mills have closed down in the last 18 months with a loss of 40,000 steel jobs. Since NAFTA, the State of South Carolina has lost 48,600 textile jobs, which are just as important as the steel jobs to the economy--found so by a special hearing under President Kennedy. But time and again you go before the International Trade Commission, and that is why they don't enforce the laws. There is no such thing as free trade. That was a pretty good wag at the end of World War II when we had the whole industry and we were in the cold war and wanted capitalism to defeat communism. We put in the Marshall Plan. We more or less gave up our manufacturing sector in pursuit of the defeat of communism with capitalism. It has worked. Nobody is complaining about that. It has persisted in Europe, even with the fall of the Soviets, and certainly is strong and viable in the Pacific rim. I was just in the People's Republic of China. They are on the right track. But don't misunderstand my statement. China is communist, and many human rights abuses occur there. But as the seed of capitalism takes over more and more each day, as it finally prevailed in the Soviet Union, the hope of the free world will prevail in the People's Republic of China. We have really gone awry with respect to international trade that the distinguished Senator talks about. I say there is no such thing as free trade. Let's go back to the earliest day when this country was built on protectionism. The debate ensued. Colonies had just won their freedom. The United Kingdom said to the fledgling colonies, you trade with us what you produce best and we will trade back with you what we produce best. Early economist David Ricardo put forth his doctrine of comparative advantage. However, the trade debate really was between Thomas Jefferson, the agriculturalist, and Alexander Hamilton, the industrialist. Hamilton wrote a booklet called ``Reports on Manufacturing.'' There is one copy left in the Library of Congress. But in a line, without reading that booklet, he told the Brits to bug off; we are not going to remain your colony and ship you our agriculture, our foodstuffs, our timber, our iron ore, and bring in the finished products from England. As a result, the second act that passed this Congress in its entire history--the first act was for the seal--but on July 4, 1789, the second act in its history that passed Congress was an act of protectionism and a 50-percent tariff on 60 articles. We began the United States by building up its manufacturing capacity. Lincoln kept it going at the very beginning of the War Between the States whereby we were trying to build a transcontinental railroad. They said we were going to get the steel rails from England. President Lincoln said no. He said we would build up our own steel capacity, and when we were through, we would have not only the transcontinental railroad, but we would have a steel industry. It comes right on down the line with America's agriculture and the darkest days of the Depression when the only hope we had was hope itself. It was Roosevelt who put in the best of the best protections. We will be passing an agriculture bill. I don't know where we are going to find the money. But you can bet your boots it will be $5 billion to $6 billion for America's agriculture. We subsidize--protect, if you please. My point was made best by Akio Morita of Sony some 20 years ago up in Chicago when we had a conference up there, and he was addressing the emerging Third World nations. He admonished that they had to develop a strong manufacturing sector to become a nation state. He pointed at me and said: Senator, the world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power. Where are we? From 41 percent of the workforce in manufacturing down to 12--making what? Nothing. I was sort of amazed at Alan Greenspan saying in February that we have so much productivity we must have a surplus as far as the eye can see, and so we ought to have a tax cut when the productivity has gone overseas. We have lost 1 million manufacturing jobs in the last year in the United States of America. That is the problem that we have with respect to trade. There is no question that if we don't begin to compete--as the distinguished Senator from North Dakota wants to do with respect to these trade deficits going up, up, and away--we will finally learn the lesson that has already been given us. In 1989, we passed a resolution to have hearings with respect to China on human rights. And the Chinese went down to New Zealand, to Australia, and over to Africa and their friends. They never had a hearing on that resolution. About 5 months ago the United States was kicked off the Human Rights Commission. Sudan and Libya remained on the commission. The atom bomb, the aircraft carrier, forget it. It is the economy, stupid. It is the industrial power, and your money in international affairs as well as domestic politics. We don't seem to realize that the name of the game out there is market share. The name of the game in the United States is standard of living. So we continue to add not just a minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closing notices, clean air and clean water, safe workplace conditions, safe machinery, and on and on. Ergonomics was the last one. I am glad we voted it down. But they think up all kinds of things here for the high standard of living, and then don't want to protect the economy of the United States. The security of our Nation is like a three-legged stool. You have the values as a nation, the one leg; unquestioned. Everyone knows that America stands for indivisible rights and freedom. The second leg is the military; unquestioned. But the third leg is industrial capacity. Industrial capacity has been fractured. I am glad the distinguished Senator from North Dakota brought this subject up when we have just a few minutes. What we should be doing is paying the bill. What we should be doing is getting competitive and enforcing the laws on the books. Does the Senator from North Dakota want to set aside his amendment and go to another amendment? I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. You mean 3:15.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I believe there is no further statement to be made with respect to the Smith amendment and that now the unanimous consent agreement takes place whereby the distinguished Senator from North Dakota will ask to set the Smith amendment aside, to be brought up at 5 p.m. with the time equally divided between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., and the vote to occur at 5:30 p.m. Until then, the agreement is the Senator from North Dakota will be recognized for him to offer an amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me ask--my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, I am sure, will say a word to extend the time. My understanding in the agreement was that it was 3:15. I just say that the distinguished Senator's amendment is clear. It says, look, Mr. Secretary of State, Mr. Attorney General of the Justice Department, you shall not defend the U.S. position. Now, come on. If there is a dispute--and there obviously is--with the Senator's amendment with respect to the right of these veterans, then let it be determined with a comprehensive review, with all the documents and everything else in a court of law. This doesn't prevent the veterans from moving forward, but it certainly prevents the United States of America, through its Department of Justice and Department of State, from defending the position of the United States under this particular treaty. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire could well say, wait a minute, here is this information that has come to light 50 years later. Whether that has an effect or not is to be determined. No rights have been taken away from my veteran friend here who might stand at my side and say, Hollings, I want you to bring the case. Nothing prevents the case from being brought. But this amendment says no one defends this particular treaty. The Senate, which ratified the treaty, doesn't want to take the position that its ratification cannot even be commented on by this particular amendment because all funds are removed, no motion can be made, no defense can be made. On that basis alone, I will support the Senator from Hawaii in his opposition and commend him again for his courage, and I commend my friend from New Hampshire for raising this particular question because it is a serious one, but it ought to be discussed in a court of law and both sides heard fully, without saying one particular side can't be defended at all. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object, let me say a word. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senators from Michigan are correct. This committee recognizes the problems faced at the Port of Detroit and its shortfall of 151 INS land border inspectors, and it is the committee's intent that a significant number of these additional INS inspectors funded in our bill will help fill that shortfall.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the fiscal year 2002 State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations bill. This bill was accepted unanimously by the full committee in July. As in past years, this has been an extremely bi-partisan effort on the part of the members and staff of this subcommittee. In particular, I would like to thank the ranking member, Senator Gregg, for his dedication to producing a fair and well rounded bill. He has chaired this subcommittee in a distinguished fashion during the past 4 years. He knows this bill through and through and his assistance during the change over has been greatly appreciated. Also, I want to recognize the hard work of my subcommittee staff; my majority clerk, Lila Helms, Jill Shapiro Long, Luke Nachbar, and Dereck Orr; as well as the minority clerk, Jim Morhard along with Kevin Linskey, Katherine Hennesey, and Nancy Perkins. This is my 31st year on the CJS Subcommittee, and this is the 25th annual appropriations bill for CJS that I have been privileged to present to the Senate either as chairman, or as ranking member of the subcommittee. I am still amazed at the range of important issues that this bill addresses. Funds appropriated under this bill directly affect the daily lives of all Americans. Under CJS, the Nation's primary and secondary schools are made safer by providing grants for the hiring of school resource officers to ensure that our children can grow and learn in a protected environment. This bill provides funds 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, guarding children from internet predators and protecting Americans from acts of terrorism here at home and abroad. People throughout this country benefit from weather forecasting services funded through this bill, whether they are farmers receiving information necessary to effectively manage their crops, or families receiving lifesaving emergency bulletins regarding tornadoes, floods, torrential rains, and hurricanes. Small communities benefit from the economic development programs funded in this bill. Nearly 1,500,000 small businesses benefit from the free SBA assistance provided in this bill. All American businesses and their employees benefit from the funding provided to enforce our trade laws and to prevent illegal, often dangerous products, from being dumped on our markets. This appropriations bill provides funds to improve technology in a host of areas; funding is provided for developing cutting edge environmental satellites, for developing cutting edge industrial technologies that keep us competitive, and for developing basic communications tools for State and local law enforcement so that they can do their jobs more safely and effectively. In all, the CJS bill totals $41.5 billion in budget authority, which is $719.9 million above the President's request. There are four specific accounts that benefit from the increased funding above the President's request. They are MARAD, COPS Universal Hiring Program, NIST's Advanced Technology Program, and the Small Business Administration. First, the President's budget proposed to move MARAD into the Department of Defense. The subcommittee received letters from over one- third of the senate indicating opposition to such a move. The committee bill reflects that request and provides $98.7 million for the Maritime Security Program and $100 million for the Title XI Loan Guarantee Program. Second, the President's budget proposed to fund only the school resource officer component of the COPS Program. The committee bill before the Senate today fully supports the School Resource Officers Program, but also restores the Universal Hiring Program. The committee bill provides $190 million for the Universal Hiring and Cops More Program. Third, the President's request proposed to zero out the Advanced Technology Program. The committee bill restores this program and provides the same level of funding, $60.7 million, for new awards as was provided last year. As a result, the bill includes $190 million above the President's request for the ATP Program. Finally, the President's request proposed to move SBA from a service agency to a fee for service agency. In order to correct this misguided understanding of the services SBA provides this country's more than 1,500,000 small businesses, the committee bill provides an additional $231 million above the President's request to restore funding for all the proposed taxes contained in the President's request. In addition to restoring the funding for Priority National Programs, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill also focuses on replacing the aging information technology and other core infrastructure needs of the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and State. As I said before, this is a well rounded bill with a number of important accounts. I would like to take a few more minutes to go over some of the specific funding highlights from the CJS bill the committee is bringing before the Senate today. 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 leveled to mark a decline of 7-percent from 1998, and marking 9 consecutive years of decline. This continues to be the longest running crime decline on record. Bipartisan efforts to fund DOJ's crime fighting initiatives have impacted this reduction in crime during the past 10 years. The bill provides $3.47 billion for the FBI, which is $216 million above last year's funding level. To meet the FBI's training, resources, and equipment needs, the bill provides $142 million for the FBI's Computer Modernization Program, trilogy; $6.8 million to improve intercept capabilities; $7 million for counter-encryption resources; $12 million for forensic research; $4 million for four mitochondrial DNA forensic labs; and $32 million for an annex for the engineering research facility, which develops and fields cutting edge technology in support of case agents. To highlight the changing mission of the FBI, the bill provides a new budget structure. Three old criminal divisions were combined into two, and new divisions for cybercrime and counterterrorism were created. The new structure provides the Bureau with more flexibility and should improve the Bureau's responsiveness to changing patterns of crime and headquarters' support of the field. The bill also directs the FBI to re-engineer its workforce by hiring and training specialists that are technically-trained agents and electronics engineers and technicians. The bill provides $1.5 billion for DEA, $8.8 million above the budget request. Increased funds are provided for technology and infrastructure improvements, including an additional $30 million for DEA's computer network, firebird, and an additional $13 million for DEA's laboratory operations for forensic support. To combat drugs that are reaching our streets and our children, the bill provides $52.8 million to fight methamphetamine and encourages the DEA to increase efforts to combat heroin and emerging drugs such as oxycontin and MDMA, also known as ecstacy. The bill also directs DEA to renew its efforts to work with Mexico to combat drug trafficking and corruption under the country's new President Vicente Fox. For the INS, the bill includes $5.5 billion, $2.1 billion of which is derived from fees. This funding provides the necessary resources to address border enforcement and benefits processing. For border enforcement, the bill provides $75 million for 570 additional Border Patrol Agents, $25 million for 348 additional land border inspectors, and $67.5 million for additional inspectors and support staff. To better equip and house these agents and inspectors, the bill provides $91 million for border vehicles, $22 million for border equipment, such as search lights, goggles and infrared scopes, $40.5 million to modernize inspection technology; and $205 million for Border patrol and detention facility construction and rehabilitation. For INS' other hat, benefits processing, the bill provides $67 million additional funds to address the backlog and accelerate the processing times. This bill includes $3.07 billion for the Office of Justice Programs, which is $259.8 above the amount requested by the President. This bill provides for the funding of a number of important law enforcement programs. The committee has provided $2.08 billion for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grants. Within this amount; $400 million is for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program; $390.5 million is 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 $265 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 $328.5 million has also been recommended for juvenile justice programs. These funds will go towards 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 to students on conflict resolution and violence reduction. This bill includes $1.019 billion for the COPS office in new budget authority, which is $164.7 billion above the President's request. As in prior years, the Senate has provided $180 million for the Cops-in- Schools Program to fund up to 1,500 additional school resources officers in FY02, which will make a total of 6,100 school resource officers funded since Senator Gregg and I created this program in 1998. This committee also remains committed 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 FY02, the committee has provided $190 million to continue to hire officers, as well as to provide much needed communications technology to the Nations law enforcement community. Within the COPS budget, the committee has also increased funding for programs authorized by the Crime Identification and Technology Act, CITA. In FY02, $150.9 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 committee has provided $48.3 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. For the Department of Commerce in fiscal year 2002, the committee has focused on the separate but equally important goals of improving departmental infrastructure and promoting the advancement of technology. The Nation is blessed with an outstanding group of individuals who go to work every day, across the Nation, for the Department of Commerce. Thirty-seven thousand people work 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 people 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. In many cases, Mr. President, these people are going to work in World War II-era buildings that are literally crumbling around them. We saw this last year in Suitland where we had leaks in the roof, lead in the water, and asbestos in the air systems and we provided funding for new buildings. The average age of the NOAA fleet of research vessels is close to 30 years old. Employees in Department of Commerce bureaus are working with antiquated computer systems that often do not speak to the outside world. The bill we have before us begins to turn the tide on infrastructure needs. In all cases, the bill 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 bill 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. In other cases, this bill jump-starts capital projects that were not requested by the President when they should have been. For example, funding is included to begin work on upgrading the Boulder, CO, campus of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 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. In terms of NOAA, the bill includes funding for 2 new research vessels and funds to refurbish 6 others. In addition, funding is included for needed 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. Mr. President, the funding provided in this bill 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 those people 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 $696.5 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 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. To date, Mr. President, 41 ATP competitions have been held; 4,435 proposals have been submitted involving 7,343 participants; 526 awards have been issued involving 1,167 participants, and 248 ATP projects have been completed. Of the 526 awards, 173 are joint ventures, and 353 are single applicants. Fify-nine percent of the projects are led by small businesses and 71 percent of the single applicant projects are led by small business. More than 150 different universities are involved in 280 ATP projects and over 100 new technologies have been commercialized as products or services. Companies have identified nearly 1,400 potential applications of ATP research. Is ATP a success? The answer clearly is ``yes.'' The Advanced Technology Program has been extensively reviewed. Since its inception, there have been 52 studies on the efficacy and merits of the program. These assessments reveal that the ATP does not fund projects that otherwise would have been financed in the private sector. Rather, the ATP facilitates so-called ``Valley of Death'' projects that private capital markets are unable to fund. In June 2001, the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council completed its comprehensive review of the ATP. It found that the ATP is an effective Federal partnership that is funding new technologies that can contribute to important societal goals. They also found that ``the ATP could use more funding effectively and efficiently.'' A March 1999 study found that future returns from just 3 of the 50 completed ATP projects--improving automobile manufacturing processes, reducing the cost of blood and immune cell production, and using a new material for prosthesis devices--would pay for all projects funded to date by the ATP. Measurement and evaluation have been part of the ATP since its beginning. What the analysis shows time and time again is that the ATP is stimulating collaboration, accelerating the development of high-risk technologies, and paying off for the Nation. The bill includes a total of $7.6 billion for the Department of State and related agencies, an increase of $617 million above last year's funding level of $7.0 billion. Within the State Department account, $1.1 billion has been provided for worldwide security upgrades of State Department facilities. Additionally, the bill provides $773 million to continue our Nation's international peacekeeping activities. During the past several years, the worldwide security accounts and the peacekeeping account have accounted for the majority of increases in the Department's budget while the day-to-day operations have been neglected. As a result, many of the Department's quality of life initiatives and the Department's other infrastructure needs-- communications, transportation, office equipment--have suffered. The funding provided in this bill fully funds all current services for the Department of State. In addition, this bill funds all quality of life initiatives such as: additional language, security, leadership and management training; monetary incentives to attract employees to hardship posts; incentives to allow civil service employees to compete for 2-year overseas assignments; and replacement of obsolete furniture and motor vehicles. As with the other departments funded through this bill, full funding is provided for information technology upgrades. The worldwide web has become essential to the conduct of foreign policy. Yet, very few overseas posts have that capability. The funding provided in this bill fully supports Secretary Powell's decision to place information technology among the Department's top priorities and fully funds the Department's efforts to provide internet access to all State Department desktops by January 2003. 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. 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 Subcommittee made those decisions in a bipartisan 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 bill before the Senate today. With the help of my colleagues, I look forward to swift passage of this vital legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Hopefully it will not hit New Hampshire.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I send to the desk a managers' package of technical amendments.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there is no question when the chorus is formed to praise our distinguished senior colleague from Hawaii, I am going to be in that chorus. There is no one I admire more. I remember the debate with respect to the reparations, and I was moved by our other wonderful Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Matsunaga. But mind you me, that was a very different situation. Here is an individual of Japanese descent, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who fought for over a year to try and gain acceptance as a soldier in the cause of the United States in World War II. And having done that-- because I was in that particular theater--to go forward in Italy with the Nisei fighters, even after the armistice peace had been signed with Italy, with his arm gone and 22 slugs in his body. He only got the Distinguished Service Cross. It hit my conscience that here was an individual, just because he was alone, and not recognized at that time, who only received the Distinguished Service Cross. And that was repaired last year when he, and others of those brave Nisei fighters, received the Medal of Honor. So the record has been made. But this isn't on account of Senator Inouye's courage. I really am grateful, managing this bill myself, that he has taken this position that does take courage in one sense of the word. But under the Constitution, which the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire points out, there is no other course than to kill this particular amendment. Let me speak again of my high regard for the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Iowa in their feeling for the veterans, particularly those who suffered under that death march from Bataan, because I was dragged into this thing myself in May of 1942, when others just ahead of me got caught up not only in the Bataan march but served as prisoners of war under such treatment that has been described by the distinguished Senators from New Hampshire and Iowa. I think of Jack Leonard. I think of other classmates who suffered in that period of the war. So I share the feeling of the Senator from New Hampshire. You cannot be more devastated and defaced and tortured than these Japanese prisoners of war. They deserve every bit of consideration they can get under the Constitution. But if we are going to be a body of laws, there isn't any question about whose side--I was taken by the Senator from New Hampshire who said you are either on the side of the private Japanese corporations or you are on the side of the veterans. Not at all. You are either on the side of the Constitution or you are not. And our Constitution says: The treaty made duly ratified is the law of the land. That terminated any particular claims or their day in court. To understand, read this amendment, not agreeing, if you please, with the Senator from New Hampshire, not agreeing, if you please, with the Senator from South Carolina, but it says: None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Department of Justice or the Department of State to file a motion in any court opposing a civil action against any Japanese person or corporation for compensation or reparations in which the plaintiff alleges that, as an American prisoner of war during World War II, he or she was used as a slave or forced labor. It says that the Department of Justice and the Department of State cannot function as a Department of Justice and a Department of State. Certainly, they don't want to do that. If it is to be that they have a right or day in court--and certainly nothing we vote on this afternoon will take away that right or day in court--it has been had, this time last year in the California court. The judge found it and studied it and objectively looked at it in every particular regard and found otherwise. Nothing that we vote on today one way or the other is going to take away their right in court. But there is a right and a duty and a responsibility of the Department of State and the Department of Justice to defend the position of the United States. And we think that the position of the United States is under article 14 of that particular treaty with Japan, ratified in 1952 by an overwhelming vote that was entered into by President Truman, ratified by a 66-10 bipartisan vote in the U.S. Senate. If I raise my hand as a Senator, I hereby pledge to preserve, protect, and defend. So it is not the side of the corporation or the side of the veteran. It is the position under the Constitution. You have to defend the laws of the land. Certainly, I am not totally familiar with this particular issue, certainly not as much so perhaps as the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. But there have been others who have studied it very thoroughly. I have a letter from a distinguished former Secretary of State. This is in June. He writes to the House chairman of Foreign Relations, I take it, at that particular time. I want to read from this letter from George P. Shultz: Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you to express my deep reservations about H.R. 1198, the Justice for the U.S. Prisoners of War Act of 2001. This was passed overwhelmingly, incidentally, in the House of Representatives. We have too many pollsters in Government. My pollster, my political consultant said: Why don't you keep your mouth shut. Let Danny Inouye defend it and you don't have to say anything. And then in the next election, you won't have to explain how the veterans now are all against you. Life is too short for that kind of nonsense. You have to take positions here. Let me go ahead with Secretary Shultz's letter: I express my opposition to the bill against the background of tremendous sympathy for the problems of the United States' citizens who have in one way or another been harmed, many severely, in the course of war and its sometimes dehumanizing impact. But the bill in question would have the effect of voiding the bargain we made and explicitly set out in the Treaty of Peace between Japan, the United States, and forty-seven other countries. President Truman with the advice and consent of the Senate ratified the treaty and it became effective April 28, 1952. The Treaty has served us well in providing the fundamental underpinning for the peace and prosperity we have seen, for the most part, in the Asia Pacific region over the past half- century. The Treaty addresses squarely the issue of compensation for damages suffered at the hands of the Japanese. Article 14 in the treaty sets out the terms of Japanese payment ``for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war.'' The agreement provides: 1. a grant of authority to Allied Powers to seize Japanese property within their jurisdiction at the time of the treaty's effective date; 2. an obligation of Japan to assist in the rebuilding of territory occupied by Japanese forces during the war; and 3. waiver of all ``other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any action taken by Japan and its nationals of the war.'' Let me divert from the reading of this letter. One says ``to seize the property.'' That was done. Japanese property was seized. You constantly hear in the presentation that this is against private corporations. The treaty was against private corporations and their property and was distributed to the prisoners of war. It wasn't done enough; you and I both agree on that in a flash. I sympathize with the motivation of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, but we did seize the property. And we did distribute it as reparations. That ended all claims of all nationals. The waiver of all other claims of the allied powers and their nationals, that ended it. It didn't say whether 50 years from now we can find some memo with respect to the Netherlands and whether or not they had constitutional authority. There isn't any question that our Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, had authority. There isn't any question that the President of the United States who signed the treaty, the Congress itself, the U.S. Senate that ratified that treaty, had its authority. This is by the board what was found 50 years later by the Netherlands. Let's find out what was found by the United States of America, its President and its Senate as constitutionally binding under the treaty. Let me go back to the letter from George P. Shultz: The interests of Allied prisoners of war are addressed in Article 16, which provides for transfer of Japanese assets in neutral or even me jurisdictions to the International Red Cross for distribution to former prisoners and their families. H.R. 1198 challenges these undertakings head on, as it says, ``In any action in a Federal court . . . the court . . . shall not construe section 14(b) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan as constituting a waiver by the United States of claims by nationals of the United States, including claims by members of the United States armed forces, so as to preclude the pending action.'' I read further: I have read carefully an opinion of Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court in California rendered on July 21, 2000 . . . I ask unanimous consent that the opinion be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in this managers' package, I have listed some two dozen technical amendments clarifying the funding level for the Merchant Marine Academy; another technical amendment clarifying the funding level for the Prison Activations; a technical amendment clarifying the funding level for NOAA Executive Administration, going right on down the list. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this description of the managers' package be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask the clerk to report it.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada, who keeps the trains running--and on time --and, incidentally, is fully informed on what is on that train. That is really the point to be made with Senator Harry Reid.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Georgia brought this matter to my attention. In fact, the fiscal year 2002 Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations bill includes 348 additional inspectors for the Nation's newest and busiest airports. These inspectors will help alleviate the long lines at several airports, including airports in the Southeast which have experienced tremendous growth over the last few years. The airports in my own home state of South Carolina illustrate this need as airlines and increasing numbers of passengers require more flights with fewer delays.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Quoting, again, from the letter: I have read carefully an opinion of Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court in California rendered on September 21, 2000, dealing with claims, many of a heart- rending nature. His reasoning and his citations are incisive and persuasive to me. He writes, ``The cases implicate the uniquely federal interests of the United States to make peace and enter treaties with foreign nations. As the United States has argued as amicus curiae, there cases carry potential to unsettle half a century of diplomacy.'' Just as Judge Walker ruled against claims not compatible with the Treaty, I urge that Congress should take no action that would, in effect, abrogate the Treaty. The chief negotiator of the Treaty on behalf of President Truman was the clear-eyed and tough-minded John Foster Dulles, who later became Secretary of State for President Eisenhower. He and other giants from the post World War II period saw the folly of what happened after World War I, when a vindictive peace treaty, that called upon the defeated states to pay huge reparations, helped lead to World War II. They chose otherwise: to do everything possible to cause Germany and Japan to become democratic partners and, as the Cold War with the Soviet Union emerged, allies in that struggle. As Judge Walker notes in his opinion, ``the importance of a stable, democratic Japan as a bulwark to communism in the region increased.'' He says, ``that this policy was embodied in the Treaty is clear not only from the negotiations history, but also from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report recommending approval of the Treaty by the Senate . . . and history has vindicated the wisdom of that bargain.'' This is George P. Shultz, and I quote further: I served during World War II as a Marine in the Pacific. I took part in combat operations. I had friends--friends close to me--friendships derived from the closeness that comes from taking part in combat together, killed practically beside me. I do not exaggerate at all in saying that the people who suffered the most are the ones who did not make it at all. I have always supported the best of treatment for our veterans, especially those who were involved in combat. If they are not being adequately taken care of, we should always be ready to do more. If you have fought in combat, you know the horrors of war and the destructive impact it can have on decent people. You also know how fragile your own life is. I recall being the senior Marine on a ship full of Marines on our way back from the Pacific Theater after 3 years overseas. We all knew that we would reassemble into assorted forces for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. As Marines, we knew all about the bloody invasion of Tarawa, the Palaus, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and many other Islands. So we knew what the invasion of the Japanese home islands would be like. Not long after we left port, an atomic bomb was dropped on Japan. None of us knew what that was, but we sensed it must be important since the event was newsworthy enough to get to our ships at sea. Then we heard of a second one. Before our ship reached the States, the war was over. I have visited Japan a number of times and I have been exposed to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Civilians there were caught up in the war. I am sympathetic toward them. I have heard a lot of criticism of President Truman for dropping those bombs, but everyone on that ship was convinced that President Truman saved our lives. Yes, war is terrible, but the treaty brought it to an end. I can divert and express those same sentiments. I didn't get back until November. He is talking about August when those bombs were dropped in 1945. But there is no question that President Truman was the hero for dropping those bombs. But under the International Criminal Court, somebody could try to file a claim 50 years later that he was a war criminal. A kind of thinking that is going on today is that this is politically correct. I will resume reading the letter from George P. Shultz: The Bill would fundamentally abrogate a central provision of a 50 year old treaty, reversing a longstanding foreign policy stance. The Treaty signed in San Francisco nearly 50 years ago and involving 49 nations could unravel. A dangerous legal precedent would be set. Once again, I would say to you, where we have veterans, especially veterans of combat who are not being adequately supported, we must step up to their problems without hesitation. But let us not unravel confidence in the commitment of the United States to a Treaty properly negotiated and solemnly ratified with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. I submit this letter to you and other members of the House of Representatives with my deep respect for the wisdom of the congressional process, and for the vision embodied in the past World War II policies that have served our country and the world so well. Sincerely yours, George P. Shultz.

Mr. HOLLINGS. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I am very aware of the increase in the number of flight delays at the Nation's airports. We have held numerous hearings on the increase in domestic and foreign travel and it is clear that additional INS agents are needed at the Nation's busiest airports. United States airports have experienced significant growth over the last several years and additional INS agents are needed to address the increased demand not only at the Atlanta airport but throughout the Nation's airports, including in my home State of South Carolina. I will continue to work with Senator Cleland to ensure that the nation's business airports, Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, receive the additional INS agents that it needs.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet on Monday, September 10, 2001, at 3:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on the Intelligent Transportation Systems Program. The hearing will be held in room SD-406.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Monday, September 10, 2001, from 10 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 215 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, S. 1364, the Telecommunications competition Enforcement Act of 2001. I introduce this bill to affirm and enforce the competitive tenants of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Some want to deregulate the Bell companies and mistakenly assert that deregulation will lead to increased deployment of broadband services. I disagree. The evidence simply does not support such a conclusion. It is only through strengthening and enforcing the competitive provisions of the 1996 Act that local phone markets will become open to competition and the delivery of advanced services will be enhanced. Congress in conjunction with members of the industry worked to pass the 1996 Act. I should note that at that time, everyone realized the impending innovations in technology and the potential for new and advanced services. These technological changes were expected to allow phone companies to provide high speed data and video services over their facilities, while also allowing cable companies to provide high speed data and phone services over their facilities. It was unquestionably understood by everyone involved that competition would be the driving force for incumbent companies to provide new services. And was this the right way to proceed? Of course it was. A wall street analysis with Montgomery Securities stated that ``RBOCs have finally begun to feel the competitive pressure from both CLECs and cable modem providers and are now planning to . . . accelerate/expand deployment of ADSL in order to counter the threat.'' Another wall street analyst with Prudential Securities noted that with respect to RBOC deployment of broadband service an ``important motivating factor is the threat of competition [and] [o]ther players are taking dead aim at the high-speed Internet access market.'' Let us not forget the context in which the 1996 Act was passed. When Judge Greene in the 1990s broke-up Ma Bell, the agreement limited the service areas that the Regional Bell Operating Companies could enter. Judge Greene understood the significant market power of the Bell companies who had no competitors in their local markets and had complete access to the customer. Clearly, under such conditions, if Bells were allowed to enter new markets, they could quickly decimate their competitors by leveraging their monopolies in their local markets. Consequently, in an effort to protect competition in other areas, Judge Greene restricted their access to other markets. For these reasons, the Bell companies came to Congress for a solution that would eliminate their service restrictions. After many years of hard work, numerous hearings, and tons of analyses, Congress in an agreement with all the relevant parties including the Bells, long distance service providers, cable companies, and consumer organizations put together a framework that met the needs and requests of all involved parties and one that gave the Bells what they most coveted, entrance into all markets. In doing so, however, Congress also put in place provisions to preserve competition. Under these conditions, the Bell companies worked with Congress to draft and pass the 1996 Act, and when the Act was finally passed, the Bell companies stated that they would quickly and aggressively open their local markets to competition. On March 5, 1996, Bell South- Alabama President, Neal Travis, stated that ``We are going full speed ahead . . . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our residential and business wireline customers.'' Ameritech's chief executive officer, Richard Notebaert on February 1, 1996, indicated his support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[T]his bill will rank as one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal legislation passed this decade. . . . It offers a comprehensive communications policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the competitive marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information age.'' On February 8, 1996, US West's President of Long Distance, Richard Coleman, predicted that USWest would meet the 14 point checklist in a majority of its states within 12-18 months. Unfortunately, the Bell companies have not kept their promises. Instead of getting down to the business of competing, the Bell companies chose a strategy of delay. In doing so, they have litigated, they have complained, and they have combined. In other words they have done everything except work to ensure competition in local markets. When the Bells first filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to enter the long distance market, contrary to their assertions, the FCC and the Department of Justice, DOJ, found that the local markets were not open to competition, and on that basis denied the companies entry into the long distance market. Once the Bells realized that they were not going to get into the long distance market before complying with the 1996 Act, they began a strategy of litigation which had two effects: 1. to delay competition into their local markets and 2. to hold on to their monopoly structure as they entered new markets in order to demolish their competitors. They appealed a series of the FCC's decisions to the courts and challenged the constitutionality of the 1996 Act even taking the case to the Supreme Court. Having lost in the courts, the Bells have now returned to Congress complaining about the 1996 Act, the very Act that they had previously championed. Many of the Bell companies have been meeting with Senators and Representatives, often accompanied by the same lawyers who helped write the 1996 Act. But this time their message is different. Instead of embracing competition, the once laudable goal they had proclaimed to be seeking, they now want to change the rules of the game and move in the opposite direction. Specifically, they now want to offer lucrative high-speed data services to long distance customers without first opening their local markets to competition, and they want to block their competitors from using their networks to provide high speed data service. As a result of these efforts, the Bells have successfully convinced some members of Congress to introduce bills that in essence allow them to offer such service while protecting the Bells against competition and slowing the delivery of affordable advanced service to consumers by gutting the 1996 Act. Bell companies claim that because no one contemplated the growth of data services that they should be permitted to continue their hold on the local customer as they provide broadband services. To state it plainly, they are wrong. The technology to provide broadband data services over the Bell network has been around since the early 1980s, but the Bells were slow to deploy service until competition prompted them to do so. Furthermore, recognizing the great potential of broadband services, Richard McCormick, then CEO and Chairman of USWest, in 1994 testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee stated the following: I want to touch briefly on USWest's business plan. We have embarked on an aggressive program both within our 14-state region and outside to deploy broadband. We want to be the leader in providing interactive, that is, two-way multimedia services, voice, data, video. In addition to the Bells realizing the importance of broadband service, Congress recognized the importance of broadband services when it passed the 1996 Act and included section 706 which is dedicated to promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as ``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.'' Also a search of the legislative debate on the 1996 Act reveals that the word ``Internet'' appears 273 times. Even the preamble to the 1996 Act refers to ``advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services.'' With this evidence before it, the FCC also concluded that the competitive provisions of the 1996 Act included high-speed, advanced data and voice services. Today, all Bell companies are providing DSL service to customers. In fact, in October of 1999, SBC announced it would spend $6 billion over 3 years on ``project Pronto'' which is the company's initiative to become the largest single provider of advanced broadband services in America. And on that point, I certainly commend SBC on its efforts. Through 2000, the four Bell companies invested 3.3. billion in DSL deployment and are expected to spend $10.3 billion through 2003. This investment is expected to payoff as earnings from their DSL investments are expected to be positive by late 2002 as market penetration hits 10 percent. By the end of the first quarter of this year, SBC and BellSouth reached about 50 percent of their customer base while Verizon reached abut 42 percent with DSL service offerings. Additionally, reports indicate that broadband service is being effectively deployed. In an August 2000 report, the FCC concluded that overall, broadband service is being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis. It also found that there has been ample national deployment of backbone and other fiber facilities that provide backbone functionality. In October of 2000, the FCC issued another report in which it determined that high speed lines connecting homes and small businesses to the Internet increased by 57 percent during the first half of 2000. These developments effectively demonstrate why there is no justification for further deregulation of the Bells at least not until competition in the local markets is acheived. A major issue in this debate is how to serve rural and underserved ares. However, there it is no demonstrated commitment by the Bells to serve the rural markets. In fact, there behavior would lead you to the opposite conclusion. Qwest/USWest has sold nearly 600 smaller exchanges representing about 500,000 access lines and GTE has sold $1.6 milion access lines. Joe Nacchio, Chief Executive Officer of Qwest stated, ``I would have not qualms selling seeral million access lines if [I] could find the real deal.'' He also noted that ``we have about 17.5 million access line--we really like 11 [million].'' While expending a great deal of resources litigating and complaining, Bell companies also have expended a fair amount of their energies in another area, that is merging and combining. In August of 1997, Verizon acquired NYNEX and in June of 2000 acquired GTE. First, SBC acquired Pac Bell, and in October of 1999, acquired Ameritech. The combined company now controls one-third of all access lines in the United States. In March of 2000, Qwest acquired USWest. At the same time, Bell Atlantic acquired Vodafone. In September of 2000, Bell-South Wireless and SBC Wireless entered into a joint venture, Cingular. Yet the local phone markets remain largely closed to competition. Even though there are many companies working to build a business in the local market, the Bells have met the 271 checklist in only six States, New York, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Undoubtedly, if they cannot obtain real access to the local phone markets, competitive companies will not be able to make a go of their businesses. My grave concern is that they will not be able to survive the Bell strategy of delay. Today, CLECs are struggling to survive. Of the 300 CLECs that began providing service since 1996, several have declared bankruptcy or are on the verge of failing and several others have scaled back their buildout plans. CLECs are faced with a significant downturn in the marketplace, tremendous difficulty in raising capital, and local markets that remain largely closed to competition. From the standpoint of capital, CLECs are particularly sensitive to the financial market since the vast majority of them are not profitable and rely on the capital markets for funding. Relying on the marketplace, CLECs have raised and spent $56 billion in their attempts to compete in the local market. Of the publicly traded CLECs in 2000, only 4 CLECs made a profit. Additionally, as a result of the market downturn, the market capitalization of CLECs fell from a high of $86.4 billion in 1999 to $32.1 billion in 2000. In Congress, we hear about the continued problems faced by competitive carriers trying to obtain access to the Bell network. Between December 1999 and April 2001, both the FCC and state regulators have imposed fines on several Bell companies for violations of their market opening and service quality requirements and other rules. For BellSouth, these fines totaled $804,750, for Qwest, $78.6 million, for SBC, $175 million, and for Verizon, $233 million. However, while these fines may be substantial to most businesses, many in the industry believe that they simply represent the cost of doing business for the Bell companies which over the past year had annual revenues in the range of tens of billions of dollars. Specifically, BellSouth's total revenues were $25.6 billion, Qwest, $18.3 billion, SBC, $50.1 billion, and Verizon, $66.4 billion. Chairman Powell has stated that in order to make fines a more effective tool, Congress should increase the FCC's current fine authority against a common carrier for a single continuing violation from $1.2 million to at least $10 million and extend the statute of limitations for violations which currently stands at 1 year. In order to get local competition going, the Pennsylvania PUC mandated the functional separation of the retail and wholesale functions of Verizon. Petitions have been filed to impose structural separation in, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Legislation has also been introduced in the State legislatures of Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Jersey on the issue of structural separation. In September of last year, Chairpersons of the Commissions in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, issued a joint statement asserting that although the Commissions had taken repeated and sustained actions over the past months to address operating deficiencies with respect to SBC-Ameritech, CLEC customers had experienced a marked decline in service quality in purchasing network elements from SBC-Ameritech. In addition to these actions by regulators, the courts also have taken action. In California in 1997, Caltech International Telecom Corporation sued SBC-Pacific Bell claiming that SBC was violating antitrust laws by acting anticompetitively and blocking competitors from their local phone market. Last year, a Federal district court ruled in favor of Caltech. Covad has sued SBC, Verizon, and BellSouth and already has obtained a $24 million arbitration ruling against SBC. Consumers have filed suit in the Superior Court of D.C. alleging that Verizon signed up over 3,000 new customers per day knowing that the company would be unable to provide high-speed service as promised and that its customers would experience significant disruptions and significant delays in obtaining technical support. Regrettably, as Bells seek to block their competitors from entering their markets, many consumers are suffering through poor quality of Bell service. In New York, the Communications Workers of America issued a service quality report in which it stated that ``Verizon has systematically misled state regulators and the public by falsifying service quality data submitted to the PSC'' and ``60 percent of workers have been ordered to report troubles as fixed when problems remained.'' 91 percent of field technicians surveyed reported that they were dispatched on repairs of recent installations only to find that dial tone had never been provided. Additionally, consumers with inside wiring maintenance plans were not receiving the services for which they were paying. Concerned about competition and service quality, the FCC as well as state Commissions have opposed legislative efforts to further deregulate the Bell companies. In response to such measures, former Chairman of the FCC, William Kennard, stated that such legislation would only upset the balance struck by the 1996 Act, . . . [and] would reverse the progress attained by the Act.'' Mr. Kennard went on to state that ``the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is working. Because of years of litigation, competition did not take hold as quickly as some had hoped. The fact that it is now working, however, is undeniable. Local markets are being opened, broadband services are being deployed, and competition, including broadband competition is taking root.'' More recently at a hearing before Congress in March, Chairman Powell of the FCC counseled against reopening the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He stated that ``any wholesale rewrite of the Telecom Act would be ill- advised.'' The Former Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Greg Rhode also stated that ``[d]espite the progress being made under the procompetitive approach of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, some in Congress are talking about changing directions. Under the veil of `de-regulation for data services' some are talking about stopping the progress of competition . . . competition, structured under the 1996 Act, is the model that will best deliver advanced telecommunications and information services, such as high speed Internet access. Walking away from the Act's pro-competitive provisions at this point would be a serious mistake.'' Recognizing the importance of the 1996 Act, the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners adopted a resolution opposing federal legislation that would deregulate the Bells and restrict the ability of State public utility commissions from fulfilling their obligations to regulate core telecommunications facilities that are used to provide both voice and data services and to promote deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities. Given the lack of competition in the local markets, the intransigent behavior of the Bell companies, and concerns about poor service quality, we are left with no choice but to adopt measures that will ensure Bell compliance with the 1996 Act. This will have to include not only fines, but also the separation of a Bell's retail operations responsible for marketing services to consumers from its wholesale operations responsible for operating and selling capacity on the network. Bell companies continue to have substantial profit margins and revenues in the billions of dollars. In contrast, Bear Stearns has stated that it expects half of the CLECs to disappear because of bankruptcy and consolidation. Unquestionably, I do anticipate that competition will weed out poor competitors. However, it does not serve consumers well for competitors to be weeded out because monopolies are not playing fair. I strongly believe that the power that the Bell companies have wielded to block their competitors from the local markets must be curbed. That's why I rise to introduce legislation today. Under my bill within one year after passage of the legislation, a Bell company is required to provide retail service through a separate division. If a Bell company has to resell or provide portions of its network to its division on the same terms and conditions that it provides to its competitors, then it will quickly and affordably make its network available to competitors. Requiring a company to separate functions or divest property is not a novel concept. In 1980, the court decided that the only way to introduced competition into the long distance market was to require Ma Bell to divest the Baby Bells. This has worked well and now the long distance market is competitive. More recently, the Pennsylvania PSC has required Verizon to separate its retail operations from its wholesale operations. These decisions are all based on concerns about the ability of a company to distort competition because the company has significant market power. Also, my bill clarifies that a carrier may bring an action against a Bell company to comply with the competition provisions of the 1996 Act at the FCC or at a State commission, and has the option of entering an alternative dispute resolution, ADR, process to enforce an interconnection agreement. The FCC is required to resolve such a complaint in 90 days and issue an interim order to correct the dispute within 30 days upon a proper showing by the carrier bringing the dispute. My bill requires the FCC to impose a penalty of $10 million for each violation and $2 million for each day of each violation. The FCC can treble the damages if the Bell company repeatedly violates competitive provisions of the 1996 Act. I have chosen to include hefty fines, because the fines at the FCC are too small to have any real effect. I am also struck by the fact that for the Bells, fines seem to be just a cost of doing business and not a punishment that deters or positively affects their behavior. As Chairman Powell has stated, the FCC's ``fines are trivial and the cost of doing business to many of these companies.'' My bill would also require the FCC to establish performance guidelines detailing what Bell companies must do in order to allow CLEC's to interconnect with the Bell network. Today, our communications network remains the envy of the world and the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating rapidly. Last year in a discussion about the lead America has over Europe with respect to the technology revolution, Thomas Middlehof, chief executive of Bertlemann, which is Europe's largest media conglomerate stated that ``Europe just doesn't get the message . . . [g]overnments are still trying to protect the old industrial structure.'' The article also noted that ``many [European] leaders now acknowledge a basic policy failure of the past decade [was] subsidizing dying industries.'' With that said, it is unfortunate that the rollout of local and broadband services on a competitive basis to all Americans is being thwarted by the failure of Bell companies to open their markets to competition. These same monopolists told us their markets would be open years ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their word. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, S. 1364, the Telecommunications competition Enforcement Act of 2001. I introduce this bill to affirm and enforce the competitive tenants of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Some want to deregulate the Bell companies and mistakenly assert that deregulation will lead to increased deployment of broadband services. I disagree. The evidence simply does not support such a conclusion. It is only through strengthening and enforcing the competitive provisions of the 1996 Act that local phone markets will become open to competition and the delivery of advanced services will be enhanced. Congress in conjunction with members of the industry worked to pass the 1996 Act. I should note that at that time, everyone realized the impending innovations in technology and the potential for new and advanced services. These technological changes were expected to allow phone companies to provide high speed data and video services over their facilities, while also allowing cable companies to provide high speed data and phone services over their facilities. It was unquestionably understood by everyone involved that competition would be the driving force for incumbent companies to provide new services. And was this the right way to proceed? Of course it was. A wall street analysis with Montgomery Securities stated that ``RBOCs have finally begun to feel the competitive pressure from both CLECs and cable modem providers and are now planning to . . . accelerate/expand deployment of ADSL in order to counter the threat.'' Another wall street analyst with Prudential Securities noted that with respect to RBOC deployment of broadband service an ``important motivating factor is the threat of competition [and] [o]ther players are taking dead aim at the high-speed Internet access market.'' Let us not forget the context in which the 1996 Act was passed. When Judge Greene in the 1990s broke-up Ma Bell, the agreement limited the service areas that the Regional Bell Operating Companies could enter. Judge Greene understood the significant market power of the Bell companies who had no competitors in their local markets and had complete access to the customer. Clearly, under such conditions, if Bells were allowed to enter new markets, they could quickly decimate their competitors by leveraging their monopolies in their local markets. Consequently, in an effort to protect competition in other areas, Judge Greene restricted their access to other markets. For these reasons, the Bell companies came to Congress for a solution that would eliminate their service restrictions. After many years of hard work, numerous hearings, and tons of analyses, Congress in an agreement with all the relevant parties including the Bells, long distance service providers, cable companies, and consumer organizations put together a framework that met the needs and requests of all involved parties and one that gave the Bells what they most coveted, entrance into all markets. In doing so, however, Congress also put in place provisions to preserve competition. Under these conditions, the Bell companies worked with Congress to draft and pass the 1996 Act, and when the Act was finally passed, the Bell companies stated that they would quickly and aggressively open their local markets to competition. On March 5, 1996, Bell South- Alabama President, Neal Travis, stated that ``We are going full speed ahead . . . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our residential and business wireline customers.'' Ameritech's chief executive officer, Richard Notebaert on February 1, 1996, indicated his support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[T]his bill will rank as one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal legislation passed this decade. . . . It offers a comprehensive communications policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the competitive marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information age.'' On February 8, 1996, US West's President of Long Distance, Richard Coleman, predicted that USWest would meet the 14 point checklist in a majority of its states within 12-18 months. Unfortunately, the Bell companies have not kept their promises. Instead of getting down to the business of competing, the Bell companies chose a strategy of delay. In doing so, they have litigated, they have complained, and they have combined. In other words they have done everything except work to ensure competition in local markets. When the Bells first filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to enter the long distance market, contrary to their assertions, the FCC and the Department of Justice, DOJ, found that the local markets were not open to competition, and on that basis denied the companies entry into the long distance market. Once the Bells realized that they were not going to get into the long distance market before complying with the 1996 Act, they began a strategy of litigation which had two effects: 1. to delay competition into their local markets and 2. to hold on to their monopoly structure as they entered new markets in order to demolish their competitors. They appealed a series of the FCC's decisions to the courts and challenged the constitutionality of the 1996 Act even taking the case to the Supreme Court. Having lost in the courts, the Bells have now returned to Congress complaining about the 1996 Act, the very Act that they had previously championed. Many of the Bell companies have been meeting with Senators and Representatives, often accompanied by the same lawyers who helped write the 1996 Act. But this time their message is different. Instead of embracing competition, the once laudable goal they had proclaimed to be seeking, they now want to change the rules of the game and move in the opposite direction. Specifically, they now want to offer lucrative high-speed data services to long distance customers without first opening their local markets to competition, and they want to block their competitors from using their networks to provide high speed data service. As a result of these efforts, the Bells have successfully convinced some members of Congress to introduce bills that in essence allow them to offer such service while protecting the Bells against competition and slowing the delivery of affordable advanced service to consumers by gutting the 1996 Act. Bell companies claim that because no one contemplated the growth of data services that they should be permitted to continue their hold on the local customer as they provide broadband services. To state it plainly, they are wrong. The technology to provide broadband data services over the Bell network has been around since the early 1980s, but the Bells were slow to deploy service until competition prompted them to do so. Furthermore, recognizing the great potential of broadband services, Richard McCormick, then CEO and Chairman of USWest, in 1994 testifying before the Senate Commerce Committee stated the following: I want to touch briefly on USWest's business plan. We have embarked on an aggressive program both within our 14-state region and outside to deploy broadband. We want to be the leader in providing interactive, that is, two-way multimedia services, voice, data, video. In addition to the Bells realizing the importance of broadband service, Congress recognized the importance of broadband services when it passed the 1996 Act and included section 706 which is dedicated to promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as ``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.'' Also a search of the legislative debate on the 1996 Act reveals that the word ``Internet'' appears 273 times. Even the preamble to the 1996 Act refers to ``advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services.'' With this evidence before it, the FCC also concluded that the competitive provisions of the 1996 Act included high-speed, advanced data and voice services. Today, all Bell companies are providing DSL service to customers. In fact, in October of 1999, SBC announced it would spend $6 billion over 3 years on ``project Pronto'' which is the company's initiative to become the largest single provider of advanced broadband services in America. And on that point, I certainly commend SBC on its efforts. Through 2000, the four Bell companies invested 3.3. billion in DSL deployment and are expected to spend $10.3 billion through 2003. This investment is expected to payoff as earnings from their DSL investments are expected to be positive by late 2002 as market penetration hits 10 percent. By the end of the first quarter of this year, SBC and BellSouth reached about 50 percent of their customer base while Verizon reached abut 42 percent with DSL service offerings. Additionally, reports indicate that broadband service is being effectively deployed. In an August 2000 report, the FCC concluded that overall, broadband service is being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis. It also found that there has been ample national deployment of backbone and other fiber facilities that provide backbone functionality. In October of 2000, the FCC issued another report in which it determined that high speed lines connecting homes and small businesses to the Internet increased by 57 percent during the first half of 2000. These developments effectively demonstrate why there is no justification for further deregulation of the Bells at least not until competition in the local markets is acheived. A major issue in this debate is how to serve rural and underserved ares. However, there it is no demonstrated commitment by the Bells to serve the rural markets. In fact, there behavior would lead you to the opposite conclusion. Qwest/USWest has sold nearly 600 smaller exchanges representing about 500,000 access lines and GTE has sold $1.6 milion access lines. Joe Nacchio, Chief Executive Officer of Qwest stated, ``I would have not qualms selling seeral million access lines if [I] could find the real deal.'' He also noted that ``we have about 17.5 million access line--we really like 11 [million].'' While expending a great deal of resources litigating and complaining, Bell companies also have expended a fair amount of their energies in another area, that is merging and combining. In August of 1997, Verizon acquired NYNEX and in June of 2000 acquired GTE. First, SBC acquired Pac Bell, and in October of 1999, acquired Ameritech. The combined company now controls one-third of all access lines in the United States. In March of 2000, Qwest acquired USWest. At the same time, Bell Atlantic acquired Vodafone. In September of 2000, Bell-South Wireless and SBC Wireless entered into a joint venture, Cingular. Yet the local phone markets remain largely closed to competition. Even though there are many companies working to build a business in the local market, the Bells have met the 271 checklist in only six States, New York, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Undoubtedly, if they cannot obtain real access to the local phone markets, competitive companies will not be able to make a go of their businesses. My grave concern is that they will not be able to survive the Bell strategy of delay. Today, CLECs are struggling to survive. Of the 300 CLECs that began providing service since 1996, several have declared bankruptcy or are on the verge of failing and several others have scaled back their buildout plans. CLECs are faced with a significant downturn in the marketplace, tremendous difficulty in raising capital, and local markets that remain largely closed to competition. From the standpoint of capital, CLECs are particularly sensitive to the financial market since the vast majority of them are not profitable and rely on the capital markets for funding. Relying on the marketplace, CLECs have raised and spent $56 billion in their attempts to compete in the local market. Of the publicly traded CLECs in 2000, only 4 CLECs made a profit. Additionally, as a result of the market downturn, the market capitalization of CLECs fell from a high of $86.4 billion in 1999 to $32.1 billion in 2000. In Congress, we hear about the continued problems faced by competitive carriers trying to obtain access to the Bell network. Between December 1999 and April 2001, both the FCC and state regulators have imposed fines on several Bell companies for violations of their market opening and service quality requirements and other rules. For BellSouth, these fines totaled $804,750, for Qwest, $78.6 million, for SBC, $175 million, and for Verizon, $233 million. However, while these fines may be substantial to most businesses, many in the industry believe that they simply represent the cost of doing business for the Bell companies which over the past year had annual revenues in the range of tens of billions of dollars. Specifically, BellSouth's total revenues were $25.6 billion, Qwest, $18.3 billion, SBC, $50.1 billion, and Verizon, $66.4 billion. Chairman Powell has stated that in order to make fines a more effective tool, Congress should increase the FCC's current fine authority against a common carrier for a single continuing violation from $1.2 million to at least $10 million and extend the statute of limitations for violations which currently stands at 1 year. In order to get local competition going, the Pennsylvania PUC mandated the functional separation of the retail and wholesale functions of Verizon. Petitions have been filed to impose structural separation in, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Legislation has also been introduced in the State legislatures of Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Jersey on the issue of structural separation. In September of last year, Chairpersons of the Commissions in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin, issued a joint statement asserting that although the Commissions had taken repeated and sustained actions over the past months to address operating deficiencies with respect to SBC-Ameritech, CLEC customers had experienced a marked decline in service quality in purchasing network elements from SBC-Ameritech. In addition to these actions by regulators, the courts also have taken action. In California in 1997, Caltech International Telecom Corporation sued SBC-Pacific Bell claiming that SBC was violating antitrust laws by acting anticompetitively and blocking competitors from their local phone market. Last year, a Federal district court ruled in favor of Caltech. Covad has sued SBC, Verizon, and BellSouth and already has obtained a $24 million arbitration ruling against SBC. Consumers have filed suit in the Superior Court of D.C. alleging that Verizon signed up over 3,000 new customers per day knowing that the company would be unable to provide high-speed service as promised and that its customers would experience significant disruptions and significant delays in obtaining technical support. Regrettably, as Bells seek to block their competitors from entering their markets, many consumers are suffering through poor quality of Bell service. In New York, the Communications Workers of America issued a service quality report in which it stated that ``Verizon has systematically misled state regulators and the public by falsifying service quality data submitted to the PSC'' and ``60 percent of workers have been ordered to report troubles as fixed when problems remained.'' 91 percent of field technicians surveyed reported that they were dispatched on repairs of recent installations only to find that dial tone had never been provided. Additionally, consumers with inside wiring maintenance plans were not receiving the services for which they were paying. Concerned about competition and service quality, the FCC as well as state Commissions have opposed legislative efforts to further deregulate the Bell companies. In response to such measures, former Chairman of the FCC, William Kennard, stated that such legislation would only upset the balance struck by the 1996 Act, . . . [and] would reverse the progress attained by the Act.'' Mr. Kennard went on to state that ``the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is working. Because of years of litigation, competition did not take hold as quickly as some had hoped. The fact that it is now working, however, is undeniable. Local markets are being opened, broadband services are being deployed, and competition, including broadband competition is taking root.'' More recently at a hearing before Congress in March, Chairman Powell of the FCC counseled against reopening the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He stated that ``any wholesale rewrite of the Telecom Act would be ill- advised.'' The Former Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Greg Rhode also stated that ``[d]espite the progress being made under the procompetitive approach of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, some in Congress are talking about changing directions. Under the veil of `de-regulation for data services' some are talking about stopping the progress of competition . . . competition, structured under the 1996 Act, is the model that will best deliver advanced telecommunications and information services, such as high speed Internet access. Walking away from the Act's pro-competitive provisions at this point would be a serious mistake.'' Recognizing the importance of the 1996 Act, the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners adopted a resolution opposing federal legislation that would deregulate the Bells and restrict the ability of State public utility commissions from fulfilling their obligations to regulate core telecommunications facilities that are used to provide both voice and data services and to promote deployment of advanced telecommunications capabilities. Given the lack of competition in the local markets, the intransigent behavior of the Bell companies, and concerns about poor service quality, we are left with no choice but to adopt measures that will ensure Bell compliance with the 1996 Act. This will have to include not only fines, but also the separation of a Bell's retail operations responsible for marketing services to consumers from its wholesale operations responsible for operating and selling capacity on the network. Bell companies continue to have substantial profit margins and revenues in the billions of dollars. In contrast, Bear Stearns has stated that it expects half of the CLECs to disappear because of bankruptcy and consolidation. Unquestionably, I do anticipate that competition will weed out poor competitors. However, it does not serve consumers well for competitors to be weeded out because monopolies are not playing fair. I strongly believe that the power that the Bell companies have wielded to block their competitors from the local markets must be curbed. That's why I rise to introduce legislation today. Under my bill within one year after passage of the legislation, a Bell company is required to provide retail service through a separate division. If a Bell company has to resell or provide portions of its network to its division on the same terms and conditions that it provides to its competitors, then it will quickly and affordably make its network available to competitors. Requiring a company to separate functions or divest property is not a novel concept. In 1980, the court decided that the only way to introduced competition into the long distance market was to require Ma Bell to divest the Baby Bells. This has worked well and now the long distance market is competitive. More recently, the Pennsylvania PSC has required Verizon to separate its retail operations from its wholesale operations. These decisions are all based on concerns about the ability of a company to distort competition because the company has significant market power. Also, my bill clarifies that a carrier may bring an action against a Bell company to comply with the competition provisions of the 1996 Act at the FCC or at a State commission, and has the option of entering an alternative dispute resolution, ADR, process to enforce an interconnection agreement. The FCC is required to resolve such a complaint in 90 days and issue an interim order to correct the dispute within 30 days upon a proper showing by the carrier bringing the dispute. My bill requires the FCC to impose a penalty of $10 million for each violation and $2 million for each day of each violation. The FCC can treble the damages if the Bell company repeatedly violates competitive provisions of the 1996 Act. I have chosen to include hefty fines, because the fines at the FCC are too small to have any real effect. I am also struck by the fact that for the Bells, fines seem to be just a cost of doing business and not a punishment that deters or positively affects their behavior. As Chairman Powell has stated, the FCC's ``fines are trivial and the cost of doing business to many of these companies.'' My bill would also require the FCC to establish performance guidelines detailing what Bell companies must do in order to allow CLEC's to interconnect with the Bell network. Today, our communications network remains the envy of the world and the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating rapidly. Last year in a discussion about the lead America has over Europe with respect to the technology revolution, Thomas Middlehof, chief executive of Bertlemann, which is Europe's largest media conglomerate stated that ``Europe just doesn't get the message . . . [g]overnments are still trying to protect the old industrial structure.'' The article also noted that ``many [European] leaders now acknowledge a basic policy failure of the past decade [was] subsidizing dying industries.'' With that said, it is unfortunate that the rollout of local and broadband services on a competitive basis to all Americans is being thwarted by the failure of Bell companies to open their markets to competition. These same monopolists told us their markets would be open years ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their word. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.