Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I would be delighted to yield. Madam President, I want to say a word about the Mexican truck amendment, the Murray-Shelby amendment, particularly to commend both Senator Murray and Senator Shelby on their diligence. The Senator from Washington has been persistent and has been ultimately fair. What happens is--since we have been criticized about even putting this on an appropriations bill--many times the cart gets before the horse. And what happened on this occasion was that the President of the United States announced summarily that come January 1 we were going to admit the Mexican trucks, ipso facto--bam, that was it. I go back immediately to the debate that we had about NAFTA, where it had been suggested that we use the common market approach rather than the free market approach. The Europeans learned long since that the free market approach did not work. On the contrary, they said: What we need to do is to develop the infrastructure of a free market; namely, property ownership, labor rights, respect for the judiciary, the infrastructure, if you please, for safety and for health care. The Europeans thereafter taxed themselves some $5.7 billion over a 5- year period, setting those elements of infrastructure up within Greece and Portugal before they admitted Greece and Portugal into the common market. We see the result of not having done that. Here we are faced with the announcement by the President and, thereupon, the action by the House in their appropriations bill. So while we had, in the authorizing committee, scheduled a hearing with respect to the Mexican trucking problem, we had to act in the Appropriations Committee in order to make it deliberate and sound and fair. The action on the House side was not that deliberate, sound, or fair. On the outside they just said: Look, we cut off any and all funds for the admission of Mexican trucking into the United States come January 1--or during the fiscal year 2002. I would agree with the President, that would be a nonstarter. So what we did then, working with Senator Murray and Senator Shelby at the authorizing level, is we continued, we had the hearing, and we addressed elements included in the Murray-Shelby amendment providing just those things that are required by U.S. truckers. I was particularly sensitive to that. There was no one who opposed NAFTA any more strongly than this particular Senator. Yet now we have it. It is not going to be repealed. It should be made to work. Very interestingly, since my colleague from Texas is on the floor, what happened was, it didn't work, NAFTA didn't work. Drugs got worse. Immigration got worse. The take-home pay of Mexicans got worse. We were supposed to get 200,000 jobs. We lost 500,000 jobs. Instead of a $5 billion-plus balance of trade, we have a $25 billion deficit in the balance of trade with Mexico. There was one good message that went to the American people. For the first time in some 82 years, they kicked out the PRI. And who is in as the Foreign Minister? Jorge Castaneda, one of the biggest opponents of NAFTA. Who is in as security chief down in Mexico? Mr. Adolfo Aguilar Zinser. I worked with these gentlemen. They were trying to build up Mexico's infrastructure. Yesterday, I met with Mexico's Minister of the Economy, Luis Ernesto Derbez. I said: Mr. Minister, point out to me whereby there is any one of these provisions here in Murray-Shelby that is not required of the American truckers. He couldn't point out a one. I said: I know you haven't had a chance to study it because the White House and others have been calling around, jumping on them down in Mexico, saying: Get on up here. We have an anti-Mexican thing going on here. They are jumping all around, and they don't know what they are talking about. I said: Write me a letter and point out whereby we don't require of our American truckers what we are requiring in Murray-Shelby. Of course, they can't do it. So this idea of ``negotiate, negotiate,'' and ``they bypassed us,'' and all that, that is out of whole cloth. We had an authorizing hearing. We had the witnesses appear. This isn't pro-Mexican; it isn't anti-Mexican. Trade is a two-way street. If we require it of the Mexicans, that which we are requiring of our own truckers, they immediately will counter and require it of our American truckers. When you do not have the infrastructure, that is when the damage is done; so we put in Murray-Shelby that on-site safety inspections take place. The Secretary of Transportation, my good friend, said: Are we going in to inspect them? The Mexican inspectors come up to Senator Murray's home State of Washington to check the apples, and, yes, we are going in to check those stations, like the Canadians check ours and we check theirs. Why? Because once we know the work there at that safety station is sound and thorough and reliable, then they can come to the border with a sheet of paper and we will pass them right on through. We can't just have passthroughs and a sheet of paper giving you nothing. This thing has gotten wholly out of kilter. I think it was really done to slow down the process, because we were doing too well over here. We passed the Patients' Bill of Rights, and we have been passing other things around here. We are going to pass some appropriations bills. Our opponents say we haven't negotiated. Baloney. I've been negotiating and I remain ready to negotiate. Put up your amendment, and we will vote. Let's get on with this particular measure. Get it over to the conference. Pass this one and move forward. But don't put this in the context of anti-Mexican or unfair or in violation of NAFTA. I went immediately to the arbitration panel, and Minister Derbez yesterday agreed. He said: No, we understand safety is required on both sides of the border. It is part of NAFTA. It is not in violation of NAFTA. So we know we hadn't violated NAFTA and violated our treaty. I don't know why all this sanctimony about violating treaties around here. That is all we have ever had, violations of these trade treaties. I had the book this morning put out by the special trade representative--it is an inch and a half thick--of all the violations, 68 pages by the Japanese. Come on. We can't get into Japan 50 years later. So we really have to honor our treaty and all that? Come on. I have heard enough of it now. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, and Senator Murray have gone about this in a purely bipartisan manner. There is no partisan or anti-Mexican feature to this whatsoever. It is a political slowdown. They know it. Let's get on with the slowdown and let's go on home as we are supposed to in the month of August. The month of August has arrived. I see the distinguished minority leader is here. He likes to go home at 7 o'clock. I like to go home in August. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to recognize the accomplishments of Dr. Fred Crawford, chief heart surgeon at the Medical University of South Carolina. Dr. Crawford grew up in rural South Carolina and still enjoys the simple life, but his sophisticated approach to work is on par with any big- city surgeon. He has done a tremendous job of bolstering the medical community's perception of MUSC during his more than 20 years on staff, by building a world-class team of physicians and nurses and by fostering excellence in his students. I ask that Clay Barbour's profile of Dr. Crawford, which appeared in The Post and Courier newspaper follows: Surgeon Strives Toward Goal for Program (By Clay Barbour) In August 1995, former New York City Mayor David Dinkins experienced severe chest pains and dizziness while on vacation in Hilton Head. When it was confirmed that the 68-year-old Dinkins needed triple bypass surgery, there were discussions over where he should receive treatment. New York, after all, offered a plethora of world-class physicians. But after consulting physicians back home, Dinkins' wife decided to place her husband's heart in the very capable hands of Dr. Fred Crawford, MUSC's chief heart surgeon. Crawford says despite Dinkins' high-profile status, his care was the same as the other 800 heart procedures performed at the Medical University of South Carolina that year. But in truth, Dinkins' decision to trust MUSC in such an important matter differed from the others in one key aspect. It was tangible proof of MUSC's standing in the medical community and validation for Crawford and his heart surgery program. When Crawford took over as MUSC's chief cardiothoracic surgeon in 1979, he had one goal--to turn the oft-overlooked program into a major force in medicine. ``We were losing too many people to hospitals out of state, and I wanted that to stop,'' he says. ``I wanted this program to carry the weight of other high-profile programs in the country. But changing perceptions was easier said than done. And even Crawford admits his goal was the naive dream of a young, idealistic surgeon. But as the Dinkins' choice to stay instate proves, with persistence, high standards and skilled personnel, even perceptions can change. country boy As Crawford climbs atop the tractor, garbed in flannel and denim, the 58-year-old doctor looks out of place. Yet it is here, on his farm amid the corn and sorghum that MUSC's head of surgery is most at home. Crawford was raised here, in the community of Providence, not far from where his 400-acre farm now sits. He met his wife of 35 years, Mary Jane, here. And his mother still lives nearby. He bought the land 12 years ago, right after Hurricane Hugo battered the state. And though he lives in Mount Pleasant, this rustic getaway serves as a weekend retreat, where he can leave the stress of surgery behind and return to a simpler time. Crawford was born in 1942 to a pair of educators. His father was the principal at the local high school. His mother was the principal at the local elementary. So he knows where he developed a fondness for academics and teaching. But he's not exactly sure what originally led him to medicine. He remembers being impressed by an uncle who practiced medicine. And he always admired the family doctor. In 1960, Crawford applied to, and was accepted at, Duke University in Durham, N.C. ``And for a country boy in South Carolina, Duke was about as far out as you could get,'' he says. ``I doubt I'd even heard of any Ivy League schools at the time.'' What started in 1960 was Crawford's 16-year relationship with Duke. During his freshman year, Crawford met the man who would become his lifelong mentor, Dr. Will Sealy, a respected heart surgeon and educator at Duke, had a profound influence on Crawford. ``One week after I met him, I knew I wanted to be a surgeon,'' Crawford says. ``After two weeks, I knew I wanted to be a heart surgeon. And after three weeks, I knew I wanted to be an academic heart surgeon.'' Crawford finished three years undergraduate work at Duke and was then accepted to the university's prestigious medical school. After finishing medical school, he began a seven-year surgical residency at the university. But the world would intrude on his education. vietnam ``I think all surgeons, if they're honest with themselves, wonder at some point if they have the hands to do the job,'' Crawford says. Any questions Crawford harbored about his ability were answered between 1969 and 1971--the years he spent in Vietnam. After finishing two years of his residency, Crawford was called to duty in the Army. He arrived at the 24th Evacuation Hospital in Long Binh in 1970. Day in and day out, the young, inexperienced Crawford operated on wounded soldiers. Immersed in work, Crawford soon forgot his doubts and concentrated on his patients. ``I knew after that experience that I had what it took to do the job,'' he says. In 1971, Crawford returned to Duke and completed the last five years of his residency. Finishing in 1976, he accepted a position as chief of cardiac surgery at the University of Mississippi. ``Which tells you more about the state of that program at the time than it does about how good I was,'' he says. Crawford stayed in Mississippi for three years. Then on a fishing trip to South Carolina in 1978, he met former South Carolina Gov. James Edwards and fate stepped in. ``I was impressed with him,'' Edwards says. ``He was an extremely well-trained South Carolina boy. A very together and prepared person.'' Edwards asked Crawford when he was coming home. It wasn't the first time Crawford had considered returning to the Palmetto State, but this time something clicked. And as luck would have it, the position for MUSC's head of cardiothoracic surgery opened up soon after the fishing trip. Crawford decided he'd make a run at it. Edwards, an oral surgeon by training, heard that Crawford was not receiving the consideration due his reputation in the industry. So he stepped in. ``I checked up on him before going to bat for him,'' Edwards says. ``I was told he had two of the finest hands a surgeon could have, and his decision-making skills were second to none.'' It wasn't long before Edwards reaped the benefits of his decision to back Crawford. In 1983, the former governor accepted a position as MUSC's president. home again, home again In 1979, Crawford accepted the MUSC job and moved home to South Carolina with the dream of turning MUSC into a world- class heart surgery program. He knew he had to fight public perception to make his dream come true. But to do that, he needed a plan. He started by recruiting world-class physicians and building a team of talented professionals around them. ``You can't have a world-class heart surgery program without world-class nurses, and world-class anesthesiologists,'' he says. ``It takes everybody to make it work.'' He then had to lobby for upgraded facilities, a part of the plan he's still working on. ``We're operating in a building that's 55 years old,'' he says. ``In the very near future we're going to have to do something about that.'' Crawford says that while he has worked hard on making a name for MUSC's heart surgery program, he has never forgotten that he is also an educator. And that's the part of the job he loves best. ``There is just something about knowing that you've played a part in turning a young student into a great surgeon,'' he says. ``And as they go out and succeed in the profession, they take a little of you with them.'' But just because he loves working with students doesn't mean he's easy on them. ``Fred has very high expectations for residents and faculty, and he lets us know when we don't live up to them,'' says Dr. Robert Sade, MUSC's director of Human Values and Healthcare, a medical ethics and health policy think tank. Sade has worked with Crawford for close to 22 years, and says the diminutive surgeon can be gruff in a professional environment. ``But he's a great guy, with a sharp sense of humor,'' he says. ``It's just that surgery is serious work, and Fred takes it very seriously. But without a doubt, he is probably one of the most intelligent and well-organized physicians I've ever worked with.'' It's an opinion shared by many in the surgical community. Crawford is the chairman of the American Board of Thoracic Surgery and is the president-elect of the American Association of Thoracic Surgeons, the most prestigious group of its kind in the world. ``That was an honor that really blew me away,'' Crawford says. At 58, Crawford has years left in his hands, and a job that's not quite finished. He intends to continue toward his goal with the same drive that led him to where he is now. ``A year ago I was diagnosed with colon cancer,'' he says. ``I'm better now, but that scare made me aware of how short our time here is. I didn't waste a lot of time before. I don't waste any now.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Carolyn Reed, director of the Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina. The Post and Courier newspaper in Charleston, SC recently published a profile of Dr. Reed in a special Remarkable Women section. I have the great pleasure of working with Dr. Reed and can attest to the remarkable job she has done since taking the reins as director last year. She is a talented and compassionate surgeon and effective administrator who easily blends these two roles in mapping the Cancer Center's future. Her commitment to offer all South Carolinians state-of-the-art cancer care is unwavering. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. [From the Post and Courier (SC), July 25, 2001] Surgeon Is Head of Cancer Center (By Dottie Ashley) You might think a pall would hang in the air when you enter the office of Dr. Carolyn Reed. She must deal daily with deadly disease in her dual roles as thoracic surgeon and director of the Hollings Cancer Center at MUSC. But, instead, you can't help but smile. Occupying one shelf, alongside a volume titled ``Thoracic Oncology,'' is a large green jar with the words ``Male Sensitivity Pills'' printed on the label. ``I doubt if that endears me to my male colleagues,'' says Reed with a laugh. Wearing her white doctor's coat over a lilac blouse, she buzzes around the office, filling it with energy and optimism, even when she is viewing results from radiology that reveal a patient has lung cancer. The surgeon, now 50, who won a thoracic surgical oncology fellowship to the venerable Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, doesn't beat around the bush. She's a straight-talking Maine Yankee, and, on this morning, speaking firmly into the telephone to a colleague, says, ``This is absurd; the system is making us do unnecessary procedures.'' Accustomed to changing the system and cracking glass ceilings, Reed is one of 4,000 practicing cardio-thoracic surgeons in the United States, of which only 2 percent are female. And she is the only female thoracic surgeon practicing in South Carolina, according to state figures. Although Reed, who is single, has cut back to a degree on the number of surgeries she performs since taking over as director of the Hollings Cancer Center last August, she is still very involved with her first love. She worries that more women don't enter the thoracic surgery arena. ``It's true more women are getting into medicine, but not really into surgery and especially thoracic surgery,'' she says, noting that when she graduated from the University of Rochester School of Medicine in 1977, only 10 percent of those in medical school residencies were women. Today, that figure is close to 50 percent. But she points out that only about 5 percent of the residents-in-training in the field of thoracic surgery are women. ``It's clearly a male-dominated field,'' she says. ``For example, I use the nurses' locker room at MUSC because there is no locker room for female surgeons. But it doesn't bother me a bit because I respect nurses and view them as colleagues, not as handmaidens.'' ``The Heart is an Organ To Pump Blood to the Esophagus'' are the words mounted on a plaque in Reed's office, indicative of her fascination with the chest portion of the human body. ``I perform operations involving lung and esophageal cancer,'' says Reed, who assumed the position of professor of surgery at MUSC in 1985. Always interested in science when attending high school in rural Maine, Reed became aware of the devastating effects of cancer when her father died of the disease when only in his 40s. At the time, she was a freshman at the University of Maine, where she graduated in 1972 as valedictorian of the class. She then went on to the University of Rochester School of Medicine, where she received her medical degree in 1977, graduating with honors and distinction in research. However, after working in research with her mentor who was a specialist in leukemia, she learned that she vastly preferred to work with patients than in a lab. ``I love my patients,'' she says. ``It has been said that doctors should keep a professional distance, but many of my patients have become my friends. The day that I don't cry in my car on the way home when I have lost a patient is the day I will quit.'' And in the past, she encountered some who encouraged her to quit. When she was a resident in general surgery in 1982 at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center in New York City, Reed was told by the center's leading teaching surgeon: ``Women only belong in the kitchen and the bedroom.'' ``Do you think I liked operating with him after hearing that?'' she asked rhetorically. ``I told him I didn't agree with him, but then I went right ahead and learned every single thing I could from him, because he was a brilliant man. ``And I think I eventually earned his respect because I ended up being the chief resident that year.'' She also faced other adversities: When she first arrived at New York Hospital, someone referred to her as ``that poor intern,'' and she learned that was because normally the thoracic surgery floor has two interns, but this time it would have only one. She was expected to work every night, often going two nights straight without sleep. But the only time she almost gave up was when she had returned to New York Hospital for two years of cardio- thoracic surgery after working at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. ``I lived across the street from the hospital where they had apartments for the staff, and after i had worked two days without sleep, I was finally sleeping in my scrubs. At 2 a.m. the phone rang. I had to get over there. When I ran out into that empty street I was crying because I thought I just can't do it. I just can't. ``But then I did it, and I saw what you can do when you are dedicated, when you really love what you do. And to see the immediate, positive results of surgery is my favorite thing in the world,'' she says on this rainy morning as she prepares to operate once more, hoping to give one more cancer patient a chance at life.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I hope to clear the air somewhat with respect to comments made by my distinguished colleague from Arizona. I serve with him on the Appropriations Committee. We both voted to report out this particular Transportation appropriations bill with the Murray amendment. We reported it out unanimously. The reason we did that is because the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, and the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, in a bipartisan manner, went about this particular task in a very deliberate, studied way. In other words, they went to the Department of Transportation and they went to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. For example, the particular provisions I heard Senator Gramm of Texas point out, there are two of them, relative to the leasing issue and the disqualification of vehicles operating illegally. They are both suspended upon implementation of the motor carrier provisions of NAFTA. That says ``upon implementation.'' What the Senator from Texas was talking about as an extreme, terrible thing and everything else, is actually required. These provisions are required under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 that passed this Senate by 99 votes. Of course, I voted for it. The Senator from Texas and the Senator from Arizona voted for it, also. It is talking of two particular provisions where, if you are found in violation, for example, you cannot then go lease your equipment for some other person to come in and do the job. That is provided for in this Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. I have it here in my hand, should there be any question. Otherwise, the Senator from Texas was correct in a sense about leasing and domicile. When we drew up this provision, we checked with the Transportation Safety Department. In fact, I thought I was correcting Secretary Mineta in our hearing last week when he attested to the fact it never should be required that it be domiciled. And I said: Mr. Secretary, we got that from your Department. Now the Department of Transportation says: Not quite. What they really meant was license in the sense of domesticating, having an individual in some State to be subject to service. In other words, if there is an accident and some aggrieved party wants to serve the particular--let's say Mexican truck--they have to have the State and an office and an individual to be served, subject to service that we all know about in the practice of law. That could be corrected, as the Senator from Washington said, by amendment. True it is that, yes, Vicente Fox, the new President of Mexico, has given us hope with NAFTA. There is no doubt we have NAFTA. I opposed it as vigorously as anyone, but now we have to see that it works. In all candor, this is the first chance I have seen that we can make it work under the new President, particularly with his Foreign Minister, Jorge Castaneda, who has taught up here in the United States. He has worked on this and I have talked to him about safety. Mexico does not really want to get embroiled in this. They are mostly interested in immigration and industry and economic expansion and everything else, and they don't want to cross wires with the United States on the matter of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act Of 1999. He said that to me several times. I understand that. Neither do we, because this is a reciprocal thing. If we required something up here in the United States that was untoward or discriminatory, they would require the same thing of us down in Mexico. We are working this treaty out. These provisions under the Murray amendment are all in conformance with NAFTA--and are required by the U.S. motor carrier act. I can tell you that right now. Senator Murray and Senator Shelby should be commended for their thoughtful process. The President said we are going to license, and the trucks can come over January 1st. The confrontational Sabo amendment in the House said there will be no money to process applications and the trucks would not be eligible to come over. It said we are going to save money by cutting funding off for the fiscal year 2002. That doesn't get us anywhere. If we take up Representative Sabo's legislative proposal, it will be another year and a half before we can address the issue. Nothing would happen until October of next year. Everybody wants to move along on this particular score. Jimmy Hoffa testified at the hearing for this Murray amendment. We asked him about these particular amendments because we wanted to be sure it was deliberate and nondiscriminatory in the sense that it was required of the U.S. motor carrier act. That is the way it has been provided. The Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, was correct in saying that we have every bit of hope and we are all working. But to say that it looks like partial discrimination and that we were trying to get some tricky kind of things on behalf of the Teamsters, or that these requirements cannot be complied with--it is totally out of whole cloth. I have never seen anybody work harder and give better leadership than the Senator from Washington with this Murray amendment. It is the Murray-Shelby amendment. It is bipartisan. It should remain so. All of this running around, I don't want to talk, or you don't want to talk, or whatever--that is nonsense. Put up the amendment so we can vote on the amendment and move on. I think the Senator from Washington ought to be commended for the very studied way in which she has gone about this particular amendment and these requirements. Certainly once that gate is opened and the trucks are coming over, then they are coming over in some 27 particular spots, and we have to provide checkpoints and personnel, training, and everything else ourselves. So it is not just the Mexicans preparing themselves and so forth by January 1st, but us, too. We don't make January 1st the drop-dead date under the Murray amendment. We say all of these things cannot be licensed; the border cannot be opened until A, B, C, or D in the Murray amendment are complied with. That is the studied, deliberate way to go about regulating at this particular point on the appropriations bill. It is important that it be done that way rather than overall on the House side. We are not looking for the President to veto it. President Bush is smart. He is not going to veto safety. There is nothing in this particular measure that would require a veto. Let's get on with legislation in the particular appropriations bill. I vetoed, like the distinguished Presiding Officer, for 4 years as the Governor. You wake up, and you want to read that veto message very clearly so it can not only be sustained legally but in the public domain. I can tell you that neither legally nor in the public domain the veto of the Murray amendment will be sustained. Nobody is trying to say we are going to stick it to you and we hope you veto it. None of that is in here. It unfortunately has gotten way off track. I am not a party or even a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation in the Appropriations Committee, but I have watched how it was done. Yes, our committee, the Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation, had a hearing with Secretary Mineta. Those kinds of things were pointed out. I could go on at length about the hearings we had. For example, the Comptroller General said: Strong enforcement will be needed for the minority of carriers that are egregious offenders and a risk to public safety. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, section 219, provides fines and disqualification sanctions for Mexican carriers operating without authority or beyond the authority in the United States. These fines range from $10,000 to $25,000. However, the act's provision has not been implemented, and this provision will expire when NAFTA's cross border trucking provisions are implemented. These are the kinds of things we had before us at the hearing of Commerce, Science, and Transportation with Secretary Mineta. It was an excellent hearing. We are ready to move on. I am convinced that we could report out a similar authorization bill this afternoon, if the committee met, similar to the Murray amendment. It would be right there, because we made our suggestions as to changes. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001. This legislation is long overdue. It is needed to facilitate future technological and advances and increases in international trade, and ensure that we have the sort of security control necessary to ensure that our borders are protected from drug smuggling, illegal aliens, trade fraud, threats of terrorism as well as potential threats to our ability to mobilize U.S. military force. I introduced similar legislation in the last Congress, but time did not allow us to proceed any further with the legislative process. However, this is just too important an issue to let it go by, and I intend to work with Senator Graham, and others to try and craft a policy to help protect our maritime borders. The Department of Transportation recently conducted an evaluation of our marine transportation needs for the 21st Century. In September 1999, then Transportation Secretary Slater issued a preliminary report of the Marine Transportation System, (MTS) Task Force--An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System. The report reflected a highly collaborative effort among public sector agencies, private sector organizations and other stakeholders in the MTS. The report indicates that the United States has more than 1,000 channels and 25,000 miles of inland, intracoastal, and coastal waterways in the United States which serve over 300 ports, with more than 3,700 terminals that handle passenger and cargo movements. These waterways and ports link to 152,000 miles of railways, 460,000 miles of underground pipelines and 45,000 miles of interstate highways. Annually, the U.S. marine transportation system moves more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight, imports 3.3 billion tons of domestic oil, transports 134 million passengers by ferry, serves 78 million Americans engaged in recreational boating, and hosts more than 5 million cruise ship passengers. The MTS provides economic value, as waterborne cargo contributes more than $742 billion to U.S. gross domestic product and creates employment for more than 13 million citizens. While these figures reveal the magnitude of our waterborne commerce, they don't reveal the spectacular growth of waterborne commerce, or the potential problems in coping with this growth. It is estimated that the total volume of domestic and international trade is expected to double over the next twenty years. The doubling of trade also brings up the troubling issue of how the U.S. is going to protect our maritime borders from crime, threats of terrorism, or even our ability to mobilize U.S. armed forces. Security at our maritime borders is given substantially less Federal consideration than airports or land borders. In the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is intimately involved in ensuring that security measures are developed, implemented, and funded. The FAA works with various Federal officials to assess threats direct toward commercial aviation and to target various types of security measures as potential threats change. For example, during the Gulf War, airports were directed to ensure that no vehicles were parked within a set distance of the entrance to a terminal. Currently, each air carrier, whether a U.S. carrier or foreign air carrier, is required to submit a proposal on how it plans to meet its security needs. Air carriers also are responsible for screening passengers and baggage in compliance with FAA regulations. The types of machines used in airports are all approved, and in many instances paid for by the FAA. The FAA uses its laboratories to check the machinery to determine if the equipment can detect explosives that are capable of destroying commercial aircrafts. Clearly, we learned from the Pan Am 103 disaster over Lockerbie, Scottland in 1988. Congress passed legislation in 1990 ``the Aviation Security Improvement Act,'' which was carefully considered by the Commerce Committee, to develop the types of measures I noted above. We also made sure that airports, the FAA, air carriers and law enforcement worked together to protect the flying public. Following the crash of TWA flight 800 in 1996, we also leaped to spend money, when it was first thought to have been caused by a terrorist act. The FAA spent about $150 million on additional screening equipment, and we continue today to fund research and development for better, and more effective equipment. Finally, the FAA is responsible for ensuring that background checks, employment records/criminal records, of security screeners and those with access to secured airports are carried out in an effective and thorough manner. The FAA, at the direction of Congress, is responsible for certifying screening companies, and has developed ways to better test screeners. This is all done in the name of protecting the public. Seaports deserve no less consideration. At land borders, there is a similar investment in security by the Federal Government. In TEA-21, approved $140 million a year for five years for the National Corridor Planning and Development and Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program. Eligible activities under this program include improvements to existing transportation and supporting infrastructure that facilitate cross-border vehicles and cargo movements; construction of highways and related safety enforcement facilities that facilitate movements related to international trade; operational improvements, including improvements relating to electronic data intercharge and use of telecommunications, to expedite cross border vehicle and cargo movements; and planning, coordination, design and location studies. By way of contrast, at U.S. seaports, the Federal Government invests nothing in infrastructure, other than the human presence of the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and whatever equipment those agencies have to accomplish their mandates. Physical infrastructure is provided by state-controlled port authorities, or by private sector marine terminal operators. There are no controls, or requirements in place, except for certain standards promulgated by the Coast Guard for the protection of cruise ship passenger terminals. Essentially, where sea ports are concerned, we have abrogated the Federal responsibility of border control to the state and private sector. I think that the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Agency are doing an outstanding job, but they are outgunned. There is simply too much money in the illegal activities they are seeking to curtail or eradicate, and there is too much traffic coming into, and out of the United States. For instance, in the latest data available, 1999, we had more than 10 million TEU's imported into the United States. For the uninitiated, a TEU refers to a twenty-foot equivalent unit shipping container. By way of comparison, a regular truck measures 48-feet in length. So in translation, we imported close to 5 million truckloads of cargo. According to the Customs Service, seaports are able to inspect between 1 percent and 2 percent of the containers, so in other words, a drug smuggler has a 98 percent chance of gaining illegal entry. It is amazing to think, that when you or I walk through an international airport we will walk through a metal detector, and our bags will be x-rayed, and Customs will interview us, and may check our bags. However, at a U.S. seaport you could import a 48 foot truck load of cargo, and have at least a 98 percent chance of not even being inspected. It just doesn't seem right. For instance, in my own state, the Port of Charleston which is the fourth largest container port in the United States, just recently we got our first unit even capable of x-raying intermodal shipping containers, and we have the temporary deployment of a canine unit. By way of comparison, the Dallas/Fort Worth is the fourth largest airport in the United States, it would be inconceivable that an airport of this magnitude have just one single canine, and one piece of screening equipment. This is simply not sufficient. The need for the evaluation of higher scrutiny of our system of seaport security came at the request of Senator Graham, and I would like to commend him for his persistent efforts in addressing this issue. Senator Graham has had problems with security at some of the Florida seaports, and although the state has taken some steps to address the issue, there is a great need for considerable improvement. Senator Graham laudably convinced the President to appoint a Commission, designed similarly to the Aviation Security Commission, to review security at U.S. seaports. The Commission visited twelve major U.S. seaports, as well as two foreign ports. It compiled a record of countless hours of testimony and heard from, and reviewed the security practices of the shipping industry. It also met with local law enforcement officials to discuss the issues and their experiences as a result of seaport related crime. For instance, the Commission found that the twelve U.S. seaports accounted for 56 percent of the number of cocaine seizures, 32 percent of the marijuana seizures, and 65 percent of heroin seizures in commercial cargo shipments and vessels at all ports of entry nationwide. Yet, we have done relatively little, other than send in an undermanned contingency of Coast Guards and Customs officials to do whatever they can. Drugs are not the only criminal problem confronting U.S. seaports. For example, alien smuggling has become increasingly lucrative enterprise. To illustrate, in August of 1999, INS officials found 132 Chinese men hiding aboard a container ship docked in Savannah, GA. The INS district director was quoted as saying; ``This was a very sophisticated ring, and never in my 23 years with the INS have I seen anything as large or sophisticated''. According to a recent GAO report on INS efforts on alien smuggling RPT-Number: B-283952, smuggling collectively may earn as much as several billion dollars per year bringing in illegal aliens. Another problem facing seaports is cargo theft. Cargo theft does not always occur at seaports, but in many instances the theft has occurred because of knowledge of cargo contents. International shipping provides access to a lot of information and a lot of cargo to many different people along the course of its journey. We need to take steps to ensure that we do not facilitate theft. Losses as a result of cargo theft have been estimated as high as $12 billion annually, and it has been reported to have increased by as much as 20 percent recently. The FBI has become so concerned that it recently established a multi-district task force, Operation Sudden Stop, to crack down on cargo crime. The other issues facing seaport security may be less evident, but potentially of greater threat. As a Nation in general, we have been relatively lucky to have been free of some of the terrorist threats that have plagued other nations. However, we must not become complacent. U.S. seaports are extremely exposed. On a daily basis many seaports have cargo that could cause serious illness and death to potentially large populations of civilians living near seaports if targeted by terrorism. Most of the population of the United States lies in proximity to our coastline. The sheer magnitude of most seaports, their historical proximity to established population bases, the open nature of the facility, and the massive quantities of hazardous cargoes being shipped through a port could be extremely threatening to the large populations that live in areas surrounding our seaports. The same conditions in U.S. seaports, that could expose us to threats from terrorism, could also be used to disrupt our abilities to mobilize militarily. During the Persian Gulf War, 95 percent of our military cargo was carried by sea. Disruption of sea service, could have resulted in a vastly different course of history. We need to ensure that it does not happen to any future military contingencies. As I mentioned before, our seaports are international borders, and consequently we should treat them as such. However, I am realistic about the possibilities for increasing seaport security, the realities of international trade, and the many functional differences inherent in the different seaport localities. Seaports by their very nature, are open and exposed to surrounding areas, and as such it will be impossible to control all aspects of security, however, sensitive or critical safety areas should be protected. I also understand that U.S. seaports have different security needs in form and scope. For instance, a seaport in Alaska, that has very little international cargo does not need the same degree of attention that a seaport in a major metropolitan center, which imports and exports thousands of international shipments. However, the legislation we are introducing today will allow for public input and will consider local issues in the implementation of new guidelines on port security, so as to address such details. Substantively, the Port and Maritime Security Act establishes a multi-pronged effort to address security needs at U.S. Seaports, and in some cases formalizes existing practices that have proven effective. The bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to establish a task force on port security and to work with the private sector to develop solutions to address the need to initiate a system of security to protect our maritime borders. The purpose of the task force is to implement the provisions of the act; to coordinate programs to enhance the security and safety of U.S. seaports; to provide long-term solutions for seaport safety issues; to coordinate with local port security committees established by the Coast Guard to implement the provisions of the bill; and to ensure that the public and local port security committees are kept informed about seaport security enhancement developments. The bill requires the U.S. Coast Guard to establish local port security committees at each U.S. seaport. The membership of these committees is to include representatives of the port authority, labor organizations, the private sector, and Federal, State, and local government officials. These committees will be chaired by the U.S. Coast Guard's Captain-of-the-Port, and will be used to establish quarterly meetings with local law enforcement and attempt to coordinate security and help facilitate law enforcement. The bill also requires the Coast Guard to develop a system of providing vulnerability assessments for U.S. seaports. After completion of the assessment, the seaport would be required to submit a security program to the Coast Guard for review and approval. The assessment shall be performed with the cooperation and assistance of local officials, through local port security committees, and ensure the port is made aware of and participates in the analysis of security concerns. I continue to believe there is a need to perform background checks on transportation workers in sensitive positions to reveal potential threats to facilitate crime or terrorism. While the bill is silent on this matter, we will continue our discussions with law enforcement and transportation workers to develop a system that facilitates law enforcement but focusus more narrowly on those employees who have access to sensitive information. The bill authorizes MarAd to provide loan guarantees to help cover some of the costs of port security infrastructure improvements, such as cameras and other monitoring equipment, fencing systems and other types of physical enhancements. The bill authorizes $8 million, annually for four years, to cover costs, as defined by the Credit Reform Act, which could guarantee up to $320 million in loans for security enhancements. The bill also establishes a grant program to help cover some of the same infrastructure costs. Additionally, the bill provides funds for the U.S. Customs Service to purchase screening equipment and other types of non-intrusive detection equipment. We have to provide Customs with the tools they need to help prevent further crime. The bill requires a report to be attached on security and a revision of 1997 document entitled ``Port Security: A National Planning Guide.'' The report and revised guide are to be submitted to Congress and are to include a description of activities undertaken under the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001, in addition to analysis of the effect of those activities on port security and preventing acts of terrorism and crime. The bill requires the Department of Transportation, to the extent feasible, to coordinate reporting of seaport related crimes and to work with state law enforcement officials to harmonize the reporting of data on cargo theft and alternatively, the feasibility of utilizing private data on cargo theft. Better data will be crucial in identifying the extent and location of criminal threats and will facilitate law enforcement efforts combating crime. The bill also requires the Secretaries of Agriculture, Treasury, and Transportation, as well as the Attorney General to work together to establish shared dockside inspection facilities at seaports for federal and state agencies, and provides $1 million, annually for four years, to carry out this section. Currently there are some U.S. ports that do not have inspection space in the organic port area. It is crucial that inspections occur as close to the point of entry as possible. The bill also establishes a program to train personnel involved in maritime transportation and maritime security. A better prepared security force will help enable us to more effectively combat potential threats of crime and terrorism. The bill also requires the Customs Service to improve reporting of imports at seaports to help ensure that Customs will have adequate information in advance of having the entry of cargo, and to do so in a manner consistent with their plans for the Automated Commercial Environmental ACE program. Finally, the bill reauthorizes an extension of tonnage duties through 2006, and makes the proceeds of these collections available to carry out the Port and Maritime Security Act. These fees currently are set at certain levels, and are scheduled to be reduced in 2002. The legislation reauthorizes and extends the current fee level for an additional four years, but dedicates its use to enhancing our efforts to fight crime at U.S. seaports and to facilitating improved protection of our borders, as well as to enhance our efforts to ward off potential threats of terrorism. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001. This legislation is long overdue. It is needed to facilitate future technological and advances and increases in international trade, and ensure that we have the sort of security control necessary to ensure that our borders are protected from drug smuggling, illegal aliens, trade fraud, threats of terrorism as well as potential threats to our ability to mobilize U.S. military force. I introduced similar legislation in the last Congress, but time did not allow us to proceed any further with the legislative process. However, this is just too important an issue to let it go by, and I intend to work with Senator Graham, and others to try and craft a policy to help protect our maritime borders. The Department of Transportation recently conducted an evaluation of our marine transportation needs for the 21st Century. In September 1999, then Transportation Secretary Slater issued a preliminary report of the Marine Transportation System, (MTS) Task Force--An Assessment of the U.S. Marine Transportation System. The report reflected a highly collaborative effort among public sector agencies, private sector organizations and other stakeholders in the MTS. The report indicates that the United States has more than 1,000 channels and 25,000 miles of inland, intracoastal, and coastal waterways in the United States which serve over 300 ports, with more than 3,700 terminals that handle passenger and cargo movements. These waterways and ports link to 152,000 miles of railways, 460,000 miles of underground pipelines and 45,000 miles of interstate highways. Annually, the U.S. marine transportation system moves more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight, imports 3.3 billion tons of domestic oil, transports 134 million passengers by ferry, serves 78 million Americans engaged in recreational boating, and hosts more than 5 million cruise ship passengers. The MTS provides economic value, as waterborne cargo contributes more than $742 billion to U.S. gross domestic product and creates employment for more than 13 million citizens. While these figures reveal the magnitude of our waterborne commerce, they don't reveal the spectacular growth of waterborne commerce, or the potential problems in coping with this growth. It is estimated that the total volume of domestic and international trade is expected to double over the next twenty years. The doubling of trade also brings up the troubling issue of how the U.S. is going to protect our maritime borders from crime, threats of terrorism, or even our ability to mobilize U.S. armed forces. Security at our maritime borders is given substantially less Federal consideration than airports or land borders. In the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is intimately involved in ensuring that security measures are developed, implemented, and funded. The FAA works with various Federal officials to assess threats direct toward commercial aviation and to target various types of security measures as potential threats change. For example, during the Gulf War, airports were directed to ensure that no vehicles were parked within a set distance of the entrance to a terminal. Currently, each air carrier, whether a U.S. carrier or foreign air carrier, is required to submit a proposal on how it plans to meet its security needs. Air carriers also are responsible for screening passengers and baggage in compliance with FAA regulations. The types of machines used in airports are all approved, and in many instances paid for by the FAA. The FAA uses its laboratories to check the machinery to determine if the equipment can detect explosives that are capable of destroying commercial aircrafts. Clearly, we learned from the Pan Am 103 disaster over Lockerbie, Scottland in 1988. Congress passed legislation in 1990 ``the Aviation Security Improvement Act,'' which was carefully considered by the Commerce Committee, to develop the types of measures I noted above. We also made sure that airports, the FAA, air carriers and law enforcement worked together to protect the flying public. Following the crash of TWA flight 800 in 1996, we also leaped to spend money, when it was first thought to have been caused by a terrorist act. The FAA spent about $150 million on additional screening equipment, and we continue today to fund research and development for better, and more effective equipment. Finally, the FAA is responsible for ensuring that background checks, employment records/criminal records, of security screeners and those with access to secured airports are carried out in an effective and thorough manner. The FAA, at the direction of Congress, is responsible for certifying screening companies, and has developed ways to better test screeners. This is all done in the name of protecting the public. Seaports deserve no less consideration. At land borders, there is a similar investment in security by the Federal Government. In TEA-21, approved $140 million a year for five years for the National Corridor Planning and Development and Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program. Eligible activities under this program include improvements to existing transportation and supporting infrastructure that facilitate cross-border vehicles and cargo movements; construction of highways and related safety enforcement facilities that facilitate movements related to international trade; operational improvements, including improvements relating to electronic data intercharge and use of telecommunications, to expedite cross border vehicle and cargo movements; and planning, coordination, design and location studies. By way of contrast, at U.S. seaports, the Federal Government invests nothing in infrastructure, other than the human presence of the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and whatever equipment those agencies have to accomplish their mandates. Physical infrastructure is provided by state-controlled port authorities, or by private sector marine terminal operators. There are no controls, or requirements in place, except for certain standards promulgated by the Coast Guard for the protection of cruise ship passenger terminals. Essentially, where sea ports are concerned, we have abrogated the Federal responsibility of border control to the state and private sector. I think that the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Agency are doing an outstanding job, but they are outgunned. There is simply too much money in the illegal activities they are seeking to curtail or eradicate, and there is too much traffic coming into, and out of the United States. For instance, in the latest data available, 1999, we had more than 10 million TEU's imported into the United States. For the uninitiated, a TEU refers to a twenty-foot equivalent unit shipping container. By way of comparison, a regular truck measures 48-feet in length. So in translation, we imported close to 5 million truckloads of cargo. According to the Customs Service, seaports are able to inspect between 1 percent and 2 percent of the containers, so in other words, a drug smuggler has a 98 percent chance of gaining illegal entry. It is amazing to think, that when you or I walk through an international airport we will walk through a metal detector, and our bags will be x-rayed, and Customs will interview us, and may check our bags. However, at a U.S. seaport you could import a 48 foot truck load of cargo, and have at least a 98 percent chance of not even being inspected. It just doesn't seem right. For instance, in my own state, the Port of Charleston which is the fourth largest container port in the United States, just recently we got our first unit even capable of x-raying intermodal shipping containers, and we have the temporary deployment of a canine unit. By way of comparison, the Dallas/Fort Worth is the fourth largest airport in the United States, it would be inconceivable that an airport of this magnitude have just one single canine, and one piece of screening equipment. This is simply not sufficient. The need for the evaluation of higher scrutiny of our system of seaport security came at the request of Senator Graham, and I would like to commend him for his persistent efforts in addressing this issue. Senator Graham has had problems with security at some of the Florida seaports, and although the state has taken some steps to address the issue, there is a great need for considerable improvement. Senator Graham laudably convinced the President to appoint a Commission, designed similarly to the Aviation Security Commission, to review security at U.S. seaports. The Commission visited twelve major U.S. seaports, as well as two foreign ports. It compiled a record of countless hours of testimony and heard from, and reviewed the security practices of the shipping industry. It also met with local law enforcement officials to discuss the issues and their experiences as a result of seaport related crime. For instance, the Commission found that the twelve U.S. seaports accounted for 56 percent of the number of cocaine seizures, 32 percent of the marijuana seizures, and 65 percent of heroin seizures in commercial cargo shipments and vessels at all ports of entry nationwide. Yet, we have done relatively little, other than send in an undermanned contingency of Coast Guards and Customs officials to do whatever they can. Drugs are not the only criminal problem confronting U.S. seaports. For example, alien smuggling has become increasingly lucrative enterprise. To illustrate, in August of 1999, INS officials found 132 Chinese men hiding aboard a container ship docked in Savannah, GA. The INS district director was quoted as saying; ``This was a very sophisticated ring, and never in my 23 years with the INS have I seen anything as large or sophisticated''. According to a recent GAO report on INS efforts on alien smuggling RPT-Number: B-283952, smuggling collectively may earn as much as several billion dollars per year bringing in illegal aliens. Another problem facing seaports is cargo theft. Cargo theft does not always occur at seaports, but in many instances the theft has occurred because of knowledge of cargo contents. International shipping provides access to a lot of information and a lot of cargo to many different people along the course of its journey. We need to take steps to ensure that we do not facilitate theft. Losses as a result of cargo theft have been estimated as high as $12 billion annually, and it has been reported to have increased by as much as 20 percent recently. The FBI has become so concerned that it recently established a multi-district task force, Operation Sudden Stop, to crack down on cargo crime. The other issues facing seaport security may be less evident, but potentially of greater threat. As a Nation in general, we have been relatively lucky to have been free of some of the terrorist threats that have plagued other nations. However, we must not become complacent. U.S. seaports are extremely exposed. On a daily basis many seaports have cargo that could cause serious illness and death to potentially large populations of civilians living near seaports if targeted by terrorism. Most of the population of the United States lies in proximity to our coastline. The sheer magnitude of most seaports, their historical proximity to established population bases, the open nature of the facility, and the massive quantities of hazardous cargoes being shipped through a port could be extremely threatening to the large populations that live in areas surrounding our seaports. The same conditions in U.S. seaports, that could expose us to threats from terrorism, could also be used to disrupt our abilities to mobilize militarily. During the Persian Gulf War, 95 percent of our military cargo was carried by sea. Disruption of sea service, could have resulted in a vastly different course of history. We need to ensure that it does not happen to any future military contingencies. As I mentioned before, our seaports are international borders, and consequently we should treat them as such. However, I am realistic about the possibilities for increasing seaport security, the realities of international trade, and the many functional differences inherent in the different seaport localities. Seaports by their very nature, are open and exposed to surrounding areas, and as such it will be impossible to control all aspects of security, however, sensitive or critical safety areas should be protected. I also understand that U.S. seaports have different security needs in form and scope. For instance, a seaport in Alaska, that has very little international cargo does not need the same degree of attention that a seaport in a major metropolitan center, which imports and exports thousands of international shipments. However, the legislation we are introducing today will allow for public input and will consider local issues in the implementation of new guidelines on port security, so as to address such details. Substantively, the Port and Maritime Security Act establishes a multi-pronged effort to address security needs at U.S. Seaports, and in some cases formalizes existing practices that have proven effective. The bill authorizes the Department of Transportation to establish a task force on port security and to work with the private sector to develop solutions to address the need to initiate a system of security to protect our maritime borders. The purpose of the task force is to implement the provisions of the act; to coordinate programs to enhance the security and safety of U.S. seaports; to provide long-term solutions for seaport safety issues; to coordinate with local port security committees established by the Coast Guard to implement the provisions of the bill; and to ensure that the public and local port security committees are kept informed about seaport security enhancement developments. The bill requires the U.S. Coast Guard to establish local port security committees at each U.S. seaport. The membership of these committees is to include representatives of the port authority, labor organizations, the private sector, and Federal, State, and local government officials. These committees will be chaired by the U.S. Coast Guard's Captain-of-the-Port, and will be used to establish quarterly meetings with local law enforcement and attempt to coordinate security and help facilitate law enforcement. The bill also requires the Coast Guard to develop a system of providing vulnerability assessments for U.S. seaports. After completion of the assessment, the seaport would be required to submit a security program to the Coast Guard for review and approval. The assessment shall be performed with the cooperation and assistance of local officials, through local port security committees, and ensure the port is made aware of and participates in the analysis of security concerns. I continue to believe there is a need to perform background checks on transportation workers in sensitive positions to reveal potential threats to facilitate crime or terrorism. While the bill is silent on this matter, we will continue our discussions with law enforcement and transportation workers to develop a system that facilitates law enforcement but focusus more narrowly on those employees who have access to sensitive information. The bill authorizes MarAd to provide loan guarantees to help cover some of the costs of port security infrastructure improvements, such as cameras and other monitoring equipment, fencing systems and other types of physical enhancements. The bill authorizes $8 million, annually for four years, to cover costs, as defined by the Credit Reform Act, which could guarantee up to $320 million in loans for security enhancements. The bill also establishes a grant program to help cover some of the same infrastructure costs. Additionally, the bill provides funds for the U.S. Customs Service to purchase screening equipment and other types of non-intrusive detection equipment. We have to provide Customs with the tools they need to help prevent further crime. The bill requires a report to be attached on security and a revision of 1997 document entitled ``Port Security: A National Planning Guide.'' The report and revised guide are to be submitted to Congress and are to include a description of activities undertaken under the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001, in addition to analysis of the effect of those activities on port security and preventing acts of terrorism and crime. The bill requires the Department of Transportation, to the extent feasible, to coordinate reporting of seaport related crimes and to work with state law enforcement officials to harmonize the reporting of data on cargo theft and alternatively, the feasibility of utilizing private data on cargo theft. Better data will be crucial in identifying the extent and location of criminal threats and will facilitate law enforcement efforts combating crime. The bill also requires the Secretaries of Agriculture, Treasury, and Transportation, as well as the Attorney General to work together to establish shared dockside inspection facilities at seaports for federal and state agencies, and provides $1 million, annually for four years, to carry out this section. Currently there are some U.S. ports that do not have inspection space in the organic port area. It is crucial that inspections occur as close to the point of entry as possible. The bill also establishes a program to train personnel involved in maritime transportation and maritime security. A better prepared security force will help enable us to more effectively combat potential threats of crime and terrorism. The bill also requires the Customs Service to improve reporting of imports at seaports to help ensure that Customs will have adequate information in advance of having the entry of cargo, and to do so in a manner consistent with their plans for the Automated Commercial Environmental ACE program. Finally, the bill reauthorizes an extension of tonnage duties through 2006, and makes the proceeds of these collections available to carry out the Port and Maritime Security Act. These fees currently are set at certain levels, and are scheduled to be reduced in 2002. The legislation reauthorizes and extends the current fee level for an additional four years, but dedicates its use to enhancing our efforts to fight crime at U.S. seaports and to facilitating improved protection of our borders, as well as to enhance our efforts to ward off potential threats of terrorism. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I drafted an amendment to the FY02 Energy and Water Subcommittee to delay plutonium shipments to the Savannah River Site until the administration solidifies its commitment to South Carolina to treat weapons-grade material and move them off- site. I understand this may be viewed as an extreme measure, but the result of budget cuts to Fissile Materials Disposition programs by DOE forced the NNSA to abandon a concurrent dual track approach for plutonium disposition and to substitute a risky ``layered'' approach. Despite administration briefings and testimony before Congress, there remain serious concerns about the disposition strategy contemplated by DOE and significant risk to South Carolina to store these materials for an extended duration, maybe indefinitely, before they are processed. I fully understand the DOE-wide implications of delaying the closing of Rocky Flats and empathize with my colleague from Colorado's keen interest in closing the site. South Carolina, and other DOE-site states, have been instrumental in assisting Colorado in meeting DOE milestone to close the site ahead of schedule. South Carolina should have a definite timetable for treating waste on site and an identified pathway out, too, just like Colorado. I am pleased to have the commitment of my colleagues from the Armed Services Committee to assist in addressing the outstanding issues with the fissile materials disposition program. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I would appreciate Senator Thurmond's views on MOX as a primary option for plutonium disposition. Would you also agree that South Carolina should also be provided a concurrent back-up option to MOX?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator. I would inquire of my colleague on his views on the cost of not proceeding. Would the Senator agree that not dealing with the existing stockpiles of nuclear materials and oxides found at DOE industrial and research sites will ultimately cost more than the construction of the MOX facility and the Plutonium Immobilization Plant?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has adopted modified rules governing its procedures for the 107th Congress. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator McCain, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in 1997, the Department of Energy and the State of South Carolina reached an agreement for the Savannah River Site to accept and dispose of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. In response to an effort by the former Soviet Union and the United States to reduce weapons-grade plutonium, the Savannah River Site would accept plutonium from the Pantex Plant in Texas and the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in Colorado. South Carolina was promised that this plutonium would only be treated at SRS, not stored for a significant amount of time. The disposition agreement included two types of treatment--blending the plutonium into mixed oxide fuel for use in commercial nuclear reactors, commonly known as MOX--and immobilizing it in a facility know as the Plutonium Immobilization Plant. The reason for using two different treatments was simple and spelled out in the Federal Register on January 21, 1997. Due to technology, complexity, timing, cost, and other factors that would be involved in purifying certain plutonium materials to make them suitable for potential use in MOX fuel, approximately 30 percent of the total quantity of plutonium (that has or may be declared surplus to defense needs) would require extensive purification to use in MOX fuel, and therefore will likely be immobilized. DOE will immobilize at least 8 metric tons, MT, of currently declared surplus plutonium materials that DOE has already determined are not suitable for use in MOX fuel. Since 1997, DOE has continued on this dual-track path for disposition. That is until this year. In the administration's fiscal year 2002 DOE budget request, funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, were cut by over $100 million. Due to these budget cuts, one of the plutonium disposition programs, immobilization, was delayed indefinitely. I don't blame the NNSA for the cut to this program because I know it is their job to work within the budget they are given. However, I do blame the Administration for providing a budget that is woefully inadequate to provide for plutonium disposition activities at Savannah River. When General Gordon, the NNSA Director, testified in front of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, he stated plainly that Plutonium Immobilization was delayed because of financial reasons, not policy ones. DOE claims it can process all of the plutonium by converting it into MOX, but, when pressed on the matter they say there is no certainty in this treatment. If MOX fails and there is not a back-up, SRS will be left with large amounts of surplus weapons-grade plutonium, but without a plan to treat it. There is an analogous situation to this one track mind set that previously occurred at SRS. To separate the sludge and liquid wastes contained in the tank farms, DOE proposed In-Tank Precipitation, ITP. After putting more than a billion dollars into this separation process, problems occurred. Excessive benzine was being produced as a by-product of the separation. As a result, the program was shut down until a new process could be found. The new process was selected last week--four years after the old process failed. Why? Because there was not an alternative to this process. Four years and a billion dollars later, the tanks are still overflowing with 60 percent of the Nation's high- level waste. This is exactly why I want to continue a dual-track disposition program for this plutonium. It was part of the original agreement and I believe that any attempt to change the agreement should be made in consultation with all the affected parties. To date, the Secretary of Energy and the Governor of South Carolina, Governor Hodges, have not spoken about the disposition activities, which is unfortunate. In fact, Governor Hodges has said he may take steps to stop shipments of plutonium to SRS, which are scheduled to begin in August. I hope the Secretary and the Governor can come to some agreement to ensure safe and timely disposition of this surplus plutonium. I had an amendment, which would have prohibited the shipment of plutonium to SRS until March 1, 2002 or until a final agreement could be reached on disposition activities, whichever comes first. Some say that stopping these shipments would be devastating to our clean-up efforts at other sites. I say that walking away from our commitments of safe and timely disposition of this material would be just as devastating. All I want is for the Administration to commit to me, the Congress and to the State of South Carolina on plutonium disposition. I do not want this plutonium to be shipped to SRS and then have the Administration come back and say that MOX is not going to work and they're going to study another way of disposing of the material. I fear this is the road we are going down, especially in light of a recent article in the New York Times saying the White House wants to restructure or end programs aimed at disposing of tons of military plutonium. I have spoken to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee and we have worked out an agreement on my amendment. With this compromise, hopefully, DOE and the State of South Carolina will come together and reach an agreement to continue these disposition programs at SRS, while ensuring they're done in a timely and safe manner. If an agreement cannot be reached, you can rest assured this will not be the last time this issue is raised on the Senate floor. I want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for all their help on this amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation, the Media Ownership Act of 2001, designed to rectify the increasing trend toward consolidation and away from a vibrant exchange of news and information in today's media marketplace. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues, Senators Inouye and Dorgan, who for years have demonstrated their tireless pursuit of the public interest in the sensible regulation of media ownership. This legislation is necessary to stem the tide toward concentration in the broadcast and newspaper industries and force a thorough and reasoned examination of the claims that further consolidation will serve the public interest. While the phrase ``public interest'' may have a vague ring to it, its meaning should be quite clear to the five members of the Federal Communications Commission, which itself observed just a few months ago that it has both ``the duty and authority under the Communications Act to promote diversity and competition among media voices.'' Notwithstanding that duty, it has come to my attention that the FCC is planning a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to relax or eliminate the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule. In addition, I understand that the FCC may consider revising, among other media ownership restrictions, the 35 percent national broadcast ownership cap later this year. I do not believe that those rules should be changed at this time. Others disagree. This legislation will enhance our debate on these issues. Locally relevant, independent programmers and distributors of media content are critically important energizers of civic discourse in this country. Indeed, that independence, localism and diversity are what separate our nation from countries where information is not allowed to flow freely. Accordingly, any proceeding to revisit existing ownership rules involving broadcast, print, or cable television must examine the potential impact that undue influence over local and national media outlets may have on our democracy. Because Congress understood the difficulty the Commission faces in quantifying democratic values such as localism and diversity, it gave the Commission the explicit and implicit statutory authority and responsibility to establish and maintain ownership caps in the media industry. Pursuant to that authority, the FCC has imposed limits on the ownership of broadcast and cable television properties, and on the cross-ownership within a market between broadcast and cable television stations, broadcast television and radio stations, and broadcast television and radio stations and newspapers. These ownership restrictions are based on factors outside the bounds of a traditional competitive analysis, and carry with them the authority to prevent consolidation before it rises to the level necessary to trigger antitrust intervention. for example, in light of the importance of promoting localism and diversity, a higher importance must be ascribed to preserving the balance of power between the networks and local stations than would otherwise be expected under traditional competition analysis. The reasons for this are simple, diversity in ownership promotes competition. Diversity in ownership creates opportunities for smaller companies, and local businessmen and women. Diversity in ownership allows creative programming and controversial points of views to find an outlet. Diversity in ownership promotes choices for advertisers. And diversity in ownership and the related restriction on national ownership groups preserves localism. And what in turn does this mean? Millions of Americans regularly receive their local news by watching their local broadcast stations or reading their daily newspaper. For these citizens, localism still matters. The proponents of increased consolidation, however, claim that the transformed media landscape demands a deregulatory response. In my view, the burden should rest on those who wish to change the rules of the game to justify those changes. If localism and diversity can be preserved in a consolidated marketplace, prove it. Arguments alone are not persuasive. Prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the top radio station group owned 39 stations and generated annual revenues of $495 million. Today, the top group owns over 1100 stations and generates revenues of almost $3.2 billion annually. This consolidation directly undercut diversity and localism in the radio marketplace. A year before Congress passed the Telecommunications Act, the FCC lifted the rules that prohibited broadcast networks from owning and creating their own television programming. This sanctioned consolidation freed the networks to seek economic stakes in, and ownership of, television programs. As the Washington Post reported last fall in an article entitled, ``Even Hits can Miss in TV's New Economy'', ``Just as supermarket might reserve its best shelf space for its house brands, the networks have begun to favor their in house programs over shows created by others, which are often less profitable in the long term.'' So we see what deregulation has brought us with radio and the market for television programming. Similar consolidation among other major media outlets should only be allowed after a thorough analysis that justifies permitting such concentration. The legislation that we introduce today addresses the FCC's lack of enforcement of the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule. The FCC's jurisdiction over newspaper broadcast ownership combinations arises from its authority to oversee broadcast communications licenses. In practice, the FCC has applied the rule only when there is a transfer or renewal of a broadcast license. So, if a broadcast station owner acquires a newspaper in the same market, there is no FCC review of the cross ownership until the station's license is up for renewal. If a newspaper owner acquires a broadcast station, however, the rule is immediately triggered because the FCC has to approve the transfer of the station's broadcast license for the transaction to go forward. When the rule was adopted, television broadcast licenses were renewed every three years. Accordingly, even when the FCC did not immediately enforce the rule, the combined entity was aware it would have to come into compliance, either by requesting a waiver, or divesting either the station or newspaper, within a short period of time. Today, however, broadcast station licenses are only renewed every eight years, thereby creating a significant loophole in the cross ownership rule, if it is only enforced by the Commission at the time of license renewals. Our bill would require the FCC to review immediately existing cross ownership combinations. The legislation requires a broadcast licensee to inform the FCC when it acquires a newspaper that would place the license in violation of the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule. Upon receipt of this information, the FCC could take a range of action under the legislation, including forcing divestiture, or granting a waiver to allow the combination to go forward. In addition, our legislation steps up a process whereby we in Congress can scrutinize any alternative that the Commission devises to replace the current media ownership rules, and compare the efficacy of a new cap or ownership measurement system against the current rules, to determine whether a new measurement provides a better mechanism to promote diversity and localism. Accordingly, our bill requires the FCC to provide to the House and Senate Commerce Committees, any proposed media ownership rule changes eighteen months before they become effective. These proposals must be transmitted to the Commerce committees along with clear and ample explanation of how the new formulations will better meet the Commission's public interest obligation to promote competition, diversity, and localism. The legislation we are introducing takes two important steps. First, it forces the FCC to enforce the current version of the FCC's newspaper-broadcast cross ownership rule. Second, it provides a check on those who might otherwise move quickly to repeal other media ownership limits without regard to the impact of the consequent consolidation on diversity, localism, and competition in the media marketplace. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide economic stimulation to one of the poorest counties in South Carolina. This legislation will allow the South Carolina Department of Commerce, SCDOC, to proceed with a project that began almost a decade ago. Well, actually the project began long before that, way back when the Army Corps of Engineers built Lake Richard B. Russell in 1984. Lake Russell is a 26,000-acre freshwater lake on the South Carolina- Georgia border and was very controversial when originally proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Enhancement of economic development in the region was a main selling point of the Corps to overcome State, local and environmental objections to the lake. Yet, to date, virtually no development has occurred despite efforts from South Carolina's Department of Commerce. Today, there is not a single room for rent by the public within sight of, or within reasonable walking distance of, the lake. There is only one gas pump on the entire lake and that is at a State park. Following the completion of Lake Russell in 1984, the Department of Commerce and Abbeville County began a plan for the development of a lakefront golf and vacation resort. The Department contracted with a development company in 1997 to develop the project, but in 1998, due to financial difficulties, construction was suspended and the developer defaulted on its Development Agreement with SCDOC. As a result of this default, the Commerce Department terminated the agreement and the property was returned to the State. In January 1999, in an attempt to complete this project, SCDOC solicited proposals from various qualified developers. After consideration of several proposals, a developer was selected that had a history of successful developments throughout the State of South Carolina. However, in order for the project to be successful, changes to the current lease have to be made. These changes are reflected by the proposed legislation. When drafting this legislation, I wanted to address several points that may cause concern. First, I wanted to make sure the public had an opportunity to be involved throughout the process. Second, I wanted to make sure any additional land that was included in the project would be mitigated by providing lands with similar ecological values and habitat. And third, I wanted to ensure that this project would be economically viable. I believe the legislation does this. Like I said, the legislation is simple and will bring economic development to a county that has longed for it. By completing this project, Abbeville County will be able to take advantage of the economic stimulation created by vacationers and tourism from the surrounding major cities, which include Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Greenville, and Augusta. This economic development was promised when the lake was built in 1984 and I believe we should honor our commitment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide economic stimulation to one of the poorest counties in South Carolina. This legislation will allow the South Carolina Department of Commerce, SCDOC, to proceed with a project that began almost a decade ago. Well, actually the project began long before that, way back when the Army Corps of Engineers built Lake Richard B. Russell in 1984. Lake Russell is a 26,000-acre freshwater lake on the South Carolina- Georgia border and was very controversial when originally proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Enhancement of economic development in the region was a main selling point of the Corps to overcome State, local and environmental objections to the lake. Yet, to date, virtually no development has occurred despite efforts from South Carolina's Department of Commerce. Today, there is not a single room for rent by the public within sight of, or within reasonable walking distance of, the lake. There is only one gas pump on the entire lake and that is at a State park. Following the completion of Lake Russell in 1984, the Department of Commerce and Abbeville County began a plan for the development of a lakefront golf and vacation resort. The Department contracted with a development company in 1997 to develop the project, but in 1998, due to financial difficulties, construction was suspended and the developer defaulted on its Development Agreement with SCDOC. As a result of this default, the Commerce Department terminated the agreement and the property was returned to the State. In January 1999, in an attempt to complete this project, SCDOC solicited proposals from various qualified developers. After consideration of several proposals, a developer was selected that had a history of successful developments throughout the State of South Carolina. However, in order for the project to be successful, changes to the current lease have to be made. These changes are reflected by the proposed legislation. When drafting this legislation, I wanted to address several points that may cause concern. First, I wanted to make sure the public had an opportunity to be involved throughout the process. Second, I wanted to make sure any additional land that was included in the project would be mitigated by providing lands with similar ecological values and habitat. And third, I wanted to ensure that this project would be economically viable. I believe the legislation does this. Like I said, the legislation is simple and will bring economic development to a county that has longed for it. By completing this project, Abbeville County will be able to take advantage of the economic stimulation created by vacationers and tourism from the surrounding major cities, which include Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Greenville, and Augusta. This economic development was promised when the lake was built in 1984 and I believe we should honor our commitment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to recognize South Carolina's peach farmers for their hard work and their delicious peaches. Today, peaches from my home State have been delivered to offices throughout the Senate and the U.S. Capitol. Thanks to South Carolina's peach farmers, those of us here in Washington will be able to cool off from the summer heat with delicious peaches. For a relatively small State, South Carolina is second in the Nation in peach production. In fact, this year farmers across my State planted more than 16,000 acres of peaches. However, a late freeze has reduced this year's crop size by 40 percent. Nevertheless, South Carolina's peach farmers wanted to give us, here in Washington, a taste of South Carolina. And as my colleagues can attest, these are some of the finest peaches produced anywhere in the United States. As we savor the taste of these peaches, we should remember the work and labor that goes into producing such a delicious fruit. While Americans enjoy peaches for appetizers, entrees and desserts, most do not stop to consider where they come from. Farmers will be laboring all summer in the heat and humidity to bring us what we call the ``perfect candy.'' What else curbs a sweet tooth, is delicious, nutritious and satisfying, but not fattening? The truth is, our farmers are too often the forgotten workers in our country. Through their dedication and commitment, our Nation is able to enjoy a wonderful selection of fresh fruit, vegetables, and other foods. In fact, our agricultural system, at times, is the envy of the world. As Senators and their staff feast on these delicious peaches, I hope they will remember the people in South Carolina who made this endeavor possible: The South Carolina Peach Council, David Winkles and the entire South Carolina Farm Bureau. They have all worked extremely hard to ensure that the U.S. Senate gets a taste of South Carolina. I am sure everyone in our Nation's Capitol will be smiling as they enjoy these delicious South Carolina peaches.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in the first part of April when we passed my amendment authorizing a rebate, we had a $102 billion surplus. Now, as of 3 o'clock this afternoon, according to the Secretary of the Treasury, the public debt to the penny--and anybody can read it on the Internet--the debt now, instead of being a surplus, has increased since the beginning of the fiscal year to $36 billion in the red. In other words, we don't have the $41 billion for a rebate. We have to go out and borrow it. Common sense says that rather than going out and borrowing money and throwing it to the winds, increasing the debt, the public would prefer that we pay down the debt. At least that is what we tell them we are doing. If you look on the screen on channel 2, the Republican channel says ``abolishes a tax rebate.'' ``President Bush and Congress promise to the American people. . . .'' They didn't promise it. It was my amendment. I promised, as the financial world advised me, that it should apply to all taxpayers. What they have done is broken my promise. Nothing is in this bill for the 25 million payroll-tax payers. In other words, you and I, Mr. President, will get a rebate, unless you vote for my amendment. But the payroll- tax payers, such as Dicky Flatt--I don't know where the Senator from Texas is, but Dicky Flatt, the fellow who ``pulls the wagon and pays the taxes, and builds the country, and sits around the kitchen table'' gets nothing. Now, come on. If there is a conscience around here, let's talk sense. Save that $41 billion. We need it for defense. We need it for education. We have increased education spending to $25 billion a year, $250 billion over 10 years. We need it for prescription drugs. Let's don't throw the money around and then cry the rest of the year here that we don't have the money. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Madam President, I want to yield to the distinguished ranking member of our Finance Committee because he has a conflict. We want to try to accommodate that.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished then-chairman of the Finance Committee, when they reported out the tax cut, did not include a rebate, did not include a tax cut for this present fiscal year, 2001. But to not have it in all of a sudden has become, in his words, dangerous: Oh, this is a dangerous thing. I am just doing what he, as the chairman of the Finance Committee, reported out. I have said: Look, let's not have a tax cut for the year 2001. That is exactly what President Bush said when he submitted his tax cut: Let's not have a tax cut for 2001. We will begin in 2002. That is what the House of Representatives said when they passed the tax cut. They said: Don't have it for 2001. Let's begin in 2002. Now, all of a sudden, to do that has become dangerous? a constitutional question? I originated this particular rebate, which I ask now to be repealed, in the Senate. The Senate did not raise a constitutional point of order that it was a revenue measure that should derive in the House. Every one of the Republicans voted for it, without question, without point of order, without constitutional question. They did not blue-slip it when it got over to the House of Representatives. Now where are we? They talk about campaign finance in the morning paper and say the House is debating it and they are only going to have 1 day of debate. But we are only going to have 15 minutes of debate here this morning on campaign finance because that is all this is. Nobody thinks now the minimal, too late, too little rebate is going to work. I have not found anybody who really thinks mailing somebody $300 or $600 is all of a sudden going to trigger a recovery in a $10 trillion economy--let me emphasize this. When it got to be about February and March, and I really began to worry about the economy, wondering if there was anything that could be done, yes, there was a rebate being discussed. So I went to the financial minds on Wall Street and the economists--because I am a former chairman of the Budget Committee, and I know whom to call and whom to talk to--and I said: Look, do you think a rebate will work? They said: It's 50-50, a flip of the coin. It might, but probably will not. To make sure it works, they told me the rebate ought to be at least 1 percent of the gross domestic product of $10 trillion, which is $100 billion. And it certainly ought to cover as many taxpayers as possible. So we set out with $100 billion, and we included the 95 million income-tax payers and the 25 million payroll-tax payers, and do you know what those rascals did? Listen to this. They gimmickly said: The corporate taxes due in September--namely, fiscal year 2001--we are going to move that over to October so we will have enough money for the campaign next year. Talk about campaign financing. Where are we going to take it away? We are going to take it away from, of all people, Dicky Flatt. The Senator from Texas is always talking about little Dicky Flatt who pulls the wagon and pays the taxes and builds the country and sits around the kitchen table. Poor Dicky Flatt gets nothing. And what does this amendment say? Let's put everybody in Dicky Flatt's shoes. If he and the 25 million payroll-tax payers are not going to get anything, then let's not give it to anybody because we can save $40 billion. To pay for what? To pay for the defense, the $18 billion increase that Secretary Rumsfeld says we are going to need. To pay for what? The distinguished Senator from Iowa re-allocated $250 million over 10 years for education. Everybody is asking: Where is the money? Instead of sobering up and looking at it in a judicious fashion and saying, wait a minute, what we are really doing is borrowing, we will have to borrow some $40 billion to distribute around when we know it is not going to do the job. Let me emphasize why I say borrow. Here in my hand is the debt to the penny. The U.S. Department of the Treasury publishes this on the Internet. The national debt now is up to $5.710 trillion. At the beginning of the fiscal year it was $5.674 trillion. So, a surplus? Come on. The debt has gone up. We have a deficit, as of this minute, of $36 billion and it is going up. I will take another bet if the distinguished former chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, will come out. I will still jump off the Capitol dome. He wants me to, I know. But I will jump off that dome if the deficit is less than $50 billion by the end of September. You watch. It is going up, up, and away. Here are the CBO figures. These are my realities. You can see here, we have ended the fiscal year 2000 with a $22.7 billion deficit, and at the beginning of this year, CBO was projecting a $26 billion surplus for 2001. Then in May, they verified that $26 billion by saying: We are going to have to adjust it down by $6 billion. So it went down to $20 billion. You can see that we Democrats have been fiscally responsible. When President Clinton came in office, he came in with a $403.6 billion increase in the debt--a deficit of $403.6 billion. We have been going down, down, down in the red, and we lost the Senate. Yes, because we voted for an increase in taxes, a cut in the size of Government--over 300,000 slots--and a cut in spending of over $350 billion. And what did that do? The market and technology boomed for 8 years, and for 8 years straight we have been reducing into the black and going right into surplus. As of April 3, we had a $102 billion surplus. Now, today, July 10, we are already back in the red. I voted for a balanced budget under Lyndon Johnson, but I haven't been able to for the past 34 years. I thought I could have until they came with the tax cut. And now they insist on it when they are going to give it to the rich. A stimulus was not even contemplated by President Bush, not contemplated by Chairman Grassley of Finance, not contemplated by the House of Representatives. And it was certainly not contemplated for Dicky Flatt, not for the 25 million payroll tax payers who really need the relief. I had to put it in on the Senate side. Oh, yes, they are buying the vote. That is all this is, campaign finance. It is a sad thing because we thought we could stay on course financially. You can see on the chart how at 22.7, we started going down in the red. Then we started back up, and now we are headed down to 75 and staying. If we had stayed on course, we were going to remain in the black, surplus, surplus, surplus. And that is what we heard from President Bush. Now he talks about stimulating, stimulating, when he had no idea of stimulating. His tax cut included nothing for this particular fiscal year. I do not touch his tax cut. I lost on that particular vote. They still have their tax cut beginning next fiscal year. But they put in, rather than a rebate, as I had it, of $500 and $1,000 and going to 120 million taxpayers in America, a rebate of just $300 and $600. They also left out the most important of all taxpayers, the payroll tax payers, some 25 million, who get nothing. All I am saying is, wait a minute, let's save the money. Let's don't go out and borrow it because we don't have it. Go over to the Treasury Department. And don't let them give you the doubletalk, either, when you get over to Treasury. When I mention doubletalk, this is what I mean. Let me explain to my colleagues. They talk about private debt and public debt, unified budget deficits and all this; we have had this gamesmanship for 34 years now. Debt held by the public has gone down $137 billion, but the debt held by the Government has gone up $173 billion. That is where you get the deficit of $36 billion. So we are borrowing now. I don't want to get into it with my distinguished chairman who is doing an outstanding job trying to save Social Security and Medicare. I can tell him, according to the Treasury records, as of this minute, they have spent $173 billion of trust funds. You have a computer. Just look up this information on the Internet. I don't know where they got the $173 billion. I have my ideas where they get it. They continue to spend. We passed 13-301. You have a Secretary of the Treasury running around, Secretary O'Neill, saying there never has been any money in the Social Security trust fund. The Greenspan Commission, section 21, said put Social Security off budget. On November 5, 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush signed it into law, 13- 301, to put Social Security off budget in the sense that the President and the Congress were forbidden to report a budget that included the Social Security trust funds. Everybody voted for it, 98-2 here in the Senate. But they totally ignore it. And now we have the Secretary of the Treasury saying there never has been a trust fund. That is how run amok this Government has become. It is time we sober up and stop spending money we don't have. Everybody is talking about paying down the debt, paying down the debt. A vote against this is to increase the debt. I am saying let's hold the tax schedule where it is and, in short, do away with the rebate because it is not going to do any good. Everybody knows there is no chance of it. And in time, Madam President, we might find some money to take care of defense, take care of education, take care of the $6.5 billion for this supplemental bill. That was never contemplated. We are looking for money as a way to pay it, and rather than going out and borrowing it, we are distributing it around to buy the vote. That is all it is going to do politically. It is not going to do anything economically. Maybe we can get back to some rational approach to our fiscal affairs. Mr. Greenspan can do all he will with respect to the monetary policy, but it is up to us to take care of the fiscal policy, the long-range interest rates and everything else. A headline from the Financial Times reads, ``Hard Landing Alert Sounded for U.S. Economy.'' And again, Mort Zuckerman, editor in chief of U.S. News and World Report, says that consumer spending, capital spending, and exports are declining rapidly, that the economy is in worse shape than it looks. With that confronting us, why are we running around borrowing some $40 billion to mail around knowing it is not going to do any good, confronting funding Social Security, funding Medicare, funding the education increase of $30 billion a year, funding the increase that Secretary Rumsfeld wants of $18 billion? I retain the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, people who fuss about doctors should read this article from the June 18, 2001 issue of Newsweek magazine. I know of no other profession that has banded together as well as the doctors mentioned in order to continue to serve. South Carolina is proud of Jack McConnell. For launching this effort and inspiring others to do likewise, he deserves the Congressional Gold Medal. The article follows: ``And What Did You Do for Someone Today?'' (By Jack McConnell, M.D.) When I was a child, we observed Father's Day by walking to the local Methodist church and listening to my father preach. We didn't have a car--my dad believed he could not ``support Mr. Ford'' on a minister's salary and still see that all of his seven children went to college. While we understood it was a special day--my mother would have something exceptional like a roast or a turkey cooking in the oven--in many ways it was not all that different from any other day. As soon as my brothers and sisters and I got home, we'd all gather around the dining-room table, where we took turns answering our father's daily question: ``And what did you do for someone today?'' While that voice and those words always stuck in my mind, they often got pushed aside by more immediate concerns: long hours in medical school, building a career in medical research, getting married, raising children and acquiring the material accouterments every father wants for his family. All the hallmarks of a ``successful'' life, according to today's standards. When these goals were met and that busy time of life was over, retirement followed on Hilton Head Island,

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. If the distinguished Senator pleases, I hate to demur at this particular point. But I don't think this particular bill is appropriate on a matter of procedure. So I didn't want to be associated with the amendment on this particular bill. This is not a tax bill, obviously. I wish to withdraw my name as a cosponsor because I have to vote against the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Is this the tax deductibility amendment that the Senator from Missouri and I cosponsored previously?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in this morning's Washington Post we finally hear the truth. President pro tempore Robert C. Byrd tells it like it is. Republican and Democrat, White House and Congress, and the people generally take heed. I ask consent that an article from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, this Senate, and I say it advisedly and respectfully, in a sense, we are the best off-Broadway show. We engage in these charades, set up these straw men and then knock them down, taking the credit for being so effective politically. We say we have a surplus; we don't have a surplus. The CBO projected in March a $23 billion surplus for this fiscal year. Mark it down, it will be between a $50 billion and $70 billion deficit. We haven't even passed an appropriations bill. We have not passed any kind of supplemental and already we can foresee, less than a week after the signing of the so-called tax cut--where we had no taxes to cut--a deficit of $50 billion to $70 billion. Now here is what we set up. We say: Wait a minute. In education there is no accountability; there is no testing. The people back home do not know what they need. If we can get some accountability and testing, we will learn what they need. Such fanciful nonsense. We have testing coming out of our ears. You mention the State, and I will give you the millions they are spending. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this schedule printed in the Record.