Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I believe that is a sound plan and I look forward to working with you as we ensure that the NWHI and other important marine areas are accorded strong and lasting protections developed through the consensus process. Thank you.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with my colleague from the great State of Hawaii. The National Sanctuary Program is an ideal tool for coordinated and comprehensive management of the coral reef ecosystem of the NWHI. I further agree that any closure areas imposed by the President prior to the completion of the sanctuary designation process should be subject to public comment and review before it becomes permanently carved in stone. Does the Senator envision that the Reserve area would be subject to the same 5-year program review that the Sanctuary process provides? In addition to Congressional oversight, such periodic and rigorous review will help ensure the Sanctuary and Reserve are meeting the expectations set by the people of Hawaii, the Sanctuary Advisory Council, the Secretary of Commerce, and the President.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks on S. 1482, the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 2000, legislation to reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. To begin, I want to thank Senator Snowe, our chairman on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee on the Commerce Committee, for putting this legislation on the committee agenda this Congress and working diligently for its passage. In addition, passage of this bill would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Kerry. I would also like to thank them for their support and inclusion of the Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program in this bill. We were all deeply saddened by Dr. Foster's passing this year, at the height of her career as the head of the National Ocean Service. I know I speak for all of my colleagues when I say we are only too pleased to have this opportunity to recognize Dr. Foster's efforts to protect, understand, and make the public care about our marine environment. Dr. Foster was particularly proud of NOAA's Sanctuaries Program and I know she would have appreciated creating this opportunity to encourage more women and minorities to become involved in the study of the marine environment and conservation of our underwater treasures. When Congress enacted the National Marine Sanctuaries Act in 1972 we recognized that while the Nation had already provided our ``special areas'' on land with protections, we had no mechanism to protect those areas of the marine environment with unique qualities that are of special national, and even international, significance. Congress acted on the need for certain marine areas to be protected from human threats and recognized that management of undersea areas posed different challenges than land-based preserves, requiring different expertise and approaches. In fact, at the time, the unique character of the marine environment was the predominant reason for bringing together the Stratton Commission and the subsequent creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at the Commission's recommendation. Before the creation of NOAA in 1970, the late Senator from Washington state, Warren Magnuson, noted that twenty-eight different departments and agencies dealt with the field of oceanography. Senator Magnuson concluded, in part because of the lack of coordination that we ``know more about the back side of the Moon that we know of three-quarters of the Earth's surface.'' The creation of NOAA was the way to go about changing this fact. Since then, Congress has consistently endorsed the creation of NOAA 30 years ago as the premier federal agency to manage, study, and protect the marine environment in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. In much the same way, Congress created the sanctuaries system to ``provide a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the conservation and management of special areas of the marine environment.'' It was the clear intent of Congress that a tool was needed to create and protect marine sanctuaries. If the Congress believed that existing laws could have done the job, we would not have created the Sanctuary program. In fact, in 1971 we recognized there was a need to create a marine sanctuaries program because ``a mechanism for protecting certain important areas of the coastal zone from intrusive activities by man . . . is not met by any legislation now on the books.'' Furthermore, the Senate Commerce Committee found that ``the establishment of marine sanctuaries is appropriate where it is desirable to set aside areas of the seabed and the waters above for scientific study, to preserve, unique, rare, or characteristic features of the oceans, coastal, and other waters, and their total ecosystems.'' As I have said before, it is as clear now as it was then that NOAA is the appropriate agency to study and preserve marine ecosystems; the line offices of NOAA have expertise in all of the major areas that impact marine sanctuaries and the ecosystems on which they depend. Today, nothing has occurred that would change the intent of Congress when they created the sanctuaries program in 1972--certain areas of the marine environment need special protection and recognition. While that protection has not been as comprehensive as many would like, I know that the program is growing in both energy and focus thanks to a concerted effort from all those who care about our coastal environment. This year marks a great turning point for the program, as a result of the improvements in this legislation, the current five-year review process, the increased financial commitment by both the Congress and the administration, and the flood of public support for ocean conservation. In fact, the exploration and publicity generated by NOAA's Sustainable Seas program, in conjunction with the National Geographic Society, will help bring a fuller understanding and focus to each of our sanctuaries. Now, one of the hallmarks of the Sanctuaries Act is the process that Congress established to ensure significant ``up-front'' involvement of all constituent groups affected by the designation of a sanctuary. Although to some this may seem unduly cumbersome, I believe that the history has shown that this inclusive, open-door process has worked and that the ``behind-closed doors, top-down'' approach creates nothing but havoc and leads to ineffective solutions that lack public support. However, I am heartened by the fact that President Clinton appears to agree with the process Congress created with the sanctuaries program. In Executive Order 13158 on Marine Protected Areas, signed on May 26, 2000, President Clinton states, ``In carrying out the requirements of . . . of this order, [agencies] shall consult with those States that contain portions of the marine environment, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, tribes, Regional Fishery Management Councils, and other entities, as appropriate, to promote coordination of Federal, State, territorial, and tribal actions to establish and manage MPAs.'' I would urge the administration to continue meeting the commitment to involve the public, the states, and tribes as much as possible up front, particularly with respect to efforts currently underway within the administration to identify and protect the corals and other living marine resources of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Use the authorities and direction contained in the Sanctuaries Act; it is flexible, works well with our nearshore analogs, the National Estuarine Research Reserves, and other coastal reserves and parks, and has the added benefit of a well-known process that has worked to ensure lasting public support for protecting the marine environment. In this regard, I commend the cooperative efforts of NOAA, and other federal and state agencies, and all the constituent groups in putting together the Tortugas Ecological Reserve under able leadership of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA was established 30 years ago to research, protect, and manage our nations oceans and atmosphere. That statement may seem fairly obvious, but there are some who may have lost sight of where we've come from and where we are going. So I thought I would re-state congressional intent for the record: Congress clearly intended that NOAA be the lead agency in development of a comprehensive and coordinated ocean and coastal management system, including marine protected areas, under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and many of the other statutes it implements such as the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In closing, I would like again state my support for the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act and to urge its adoption by the Senate. This bill takes an important step to further the wise stewardship of our marine resources and the protection of areas of significant ecological, aesthetic, historical and recreational value. It will improve our 13 existing sanctuaries, provide a rational framework for the designation of any future marine sanctuaries, and offers a sound mechanism for a coordinating a national system of marine protected areas.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1654 which authorizes appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2000 to 2002. We have taken a long road to reach this point. I particularly want to thank my fellow conferees, Senators McCain, Frist, Stevens, and Breaux. You and your staffs have worked in a professional, bipartisan manner to get this bill done. Congratulations. In the past year alone, we have heard of great successes at NASA-- launch of the first element of the International Space Station, discoveries about the nature of our universe by our new Chandra X-Ray Observatory, the discovery of evidence to show liquid water on Mars. However, NASA has also seen some chinks in its armor with the failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter and the Mars Polar Lander and subsequent questions about the ``faster, better, cheaper'' mission concept. I note that Section 301 of the bill requires an independent cost analysis of missions that are projected to cost more than $150 million so that we do not operate under unrealistic budget constraints that have been blamed, in part, for these losses. It seems that NASA is at a bit of a crossroads both in trying to operate more efficiently without losing its effectiveness and in looking forward to the day when the International Space Station will be complete. So you see, this is the perfect time for an authorization bill like this one to help lay down a road map for the agency. Specifically, H.R. 1654 authorizes $13.6 billion for NASA in FY 2000, $14.2 billion in FY 2001, and $14.6 billion in FY 2002. These are at or above the requested level. The conference report highlights some priorities within NASA's accounts. I want to make it very clear for the record, though--this is an authorization bill. None of this money in any of these accounts can be spent until appropriated. The VA-HUD appropriations law will have the final say on spending, and that is as it should be. Senator McCain and Senator Breaux, I am sure, will summarize the major provisions of this legislation. I would like to discuss, briefly, why the conferees did what we did in a few places. The bill imposes a cap on the total development cost of the International Space Station and related Space Shuttle launch costs. While I am no supporter of the International Space Station, I support the cap as a way of imposing a program that until recently was bleeding more and more red ink every day. Nonetheless, I am concerned about the safety of the Shuttle, the Station, and our astronauts. As soon as NASA expressed concerns about safety, we immediately listened to their concerns and accommodated them without putting a hole in the cap that you could fly the Shuttle through. Section 324 of the bill alters the provisions of the Space Act relating to insurance, indemnification, and cross waivers for experimental launch vehicles. Current law provides broad authority for the Administrator of NASA to indemnify the developers of experimental launch vehicles. As you may know, the parallel authority under FAA's licensing authority for operational vehicles sunsets periodically. H.R. 1654 places a sunset on the authority for experimental vehicles to allow us to review its use. The bill also does not allow reciprocal waivers of liability in a case where a loss results from the willful misconduct of a party to such waiver. I am pleased we could include section 322 which would prohibit the licensing of the U.S. launch of a payload containing advertising which would be visible to the naked eye from space. It also encourages the President to seek agreements with other nations to do the same. I, for one, do not believe that advertisements should compete for space in the sky with constellations, meteor showers, and planets. The conferees have authorized $25 million in FY 2001 and 2002 for the Commercial Remote Sensing Program's data purchases. I hope that such funding would be used to assist local and state government users acquire and use remote sensing data in their operations. The conferees have worked with the Administration to resolve several complicated policy issues. We did not come to the exact place the Administration wanted us to be. Nonetheless, I think we have come to provisions which satisfy the Administration's bottom line. Does the Administration love the bill? Of course not--what agency likes oversight, likes an authorization bill, especially if that agency has been operating in the absence of authorization since FY 1993. Nonetheless, I think we have done a good job. This is a bill the President can and should sign. We resolve the Administration's concerns regarding onerous provisions relating to Russian involvement in the Space Station program by making them country-neutral and forward-looking. The bill keeps the Space Station Commercial Demonstration Program in law, albeit for a shorter authorization period. H.R. 1654 will allow NASA to lease an inflatable habitation module or ``Trans-HAB.'' The bill does not terminate the Triana satellite program. And, as I mentioned before, the bill accounts for safety-related concerns about the cap provision. Unfortunately, we could not include some meritorious provisions which were transmitted to the Hill with NASA's FY 2001 budget submission. I would be happy to work in the next Congress with NASA on a policy bill which meets these needs. Finally, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee once again. When our negotiations with the House threatened to dissolve, he stood firm on the need for a bipartisan NASA bill this year. I speak for all of the conferees when I congratulate him for putting together this bill. While it is not perfect, I support H.R. 1654 and hope that the Senate will adopt the conference report.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding South Carolina native, Michael Tecklenburg, who has been named president of the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. I have had the privilege of knowing Michael and his family in Charleston for many years and I can't think of an individual more deserving of this honor. As a young child, Michael was initially diagnosed as being mentally disabled, but his parents recognized their son's abilities and did not give up until doctors discovered his true condition--deafness. Michael went on to excel in his studies at St. Joseph Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis and later at the University of South Carolina Honors College. In 1989, he became the first deaf graduate of Columbia Law School. Since 1999, Michael has been the Washington, D.C. director of the South Carolina Governor's Office. Prior to joining the Governor's staff, Michael practiced law with the Washington firm of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand. He has also served as litigation counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice's anti-trust division and as assistant counsel in the Presidential Personnel Office. At 37, Michael is the youngest person to serve as the Bell Association's president, a small fact that attests to his very large talent. I have no doubt that he will guide the Association to many successes during his two-year tenure. He is a credit to South Carolina and to the Nation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the committee has led the way on this tire safety measure on the Senate side. I just had an opportunity to look at the House provision. There is no question that there are two or three things in there that should be cleared up. One, it has certain reporting requirements, but then the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is supposed to keep them top secret. I want that explained to me. We do not operate like the CIA. There is no reason to keep it from public knowledge. In fact, that is exactly why we have this entity--to collect reported defects that come to the attention of the consumers in America. Secondly, there is another provision with respect to criminal penalties. I have tire manufacturers in my State, and I wanted to be absolutely clear that we did not unduly threaten fine, good businessmen who are working to produce a safe product. Or make it so that they would be faced with some kind of criminal charge by way of a mistake that did not come to their knowledge. That was not the intent of the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina as we worked through this. Obviously, that was taken out of the Senate bill. Otherwise we would never have had a unanimous vote in reporting this bill 20-0. But there is a provision in that House bill whereby if there has been a willful and malicious reporting to this agency--such as we saw in the tobacco case where they all raised their hands and you knew they were lying at the time--then there should be a criminal penalty. That ought to be cleared up in the House bill. We are only asking that the Senate bill be considered so we can amend the House bill and work this measure out under the leadership of Senator McCain. The other provision with respect to the reporting of claims--after all that is the only way we found out about these recent deaths that now approximate 100 killed on the highways. As they brought these claims down to a conclusion, the judge put them under what we call a gag order where they were not allowed to consider or consult or even talk about the final settlement. It was more or less kept top secret from the press and media, and nobody knew it was going on. Of course, NHTSA has been practically dormant. They have not operated the tire safety requirements since the year 1973, and this reflects on us in the committee. They have not had or ordered a single recall on tires in the last 5 years. There have been 99 million overall safety vehicle recalls, but they have all been voluntary on account of the threats of lawsuits. We know that. It was only because of the word getting out about these lawsuits that we finally have gotten to pay attention to this, bringing out a bill, unanimously reported under the leadership of the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, which is totally bipartisan. I join in the Senator's request, which I am confident he will make, that we be able to bring the Senate bill up, amend the House bill, work this out in the next few days--it could be worked out by tomorrow--and have a good measure that would save lives in America. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I don't want the Senator to take back his praise, but let me clear the record relative to trial lawyers. Trial lawyers got us where we are. If it hadn't been for trial lawyers bringing the cases and filing some of the reports made on the recoveries thereof, we would not have awakened, literally, and awakened our own Commerce Committee to have the hearings to put us on the floor this evening. I am intimate with the trial lawyer movement in this country. I can tell you that they have become a whipping boy for Tom Donahue and his blooming Chamber of Commerce, and any time you want to pass some measure like the Y2K bill, the trial lawyers had no objection whatsoever. I have to correct the record because the chairman said that is the contest that is going on, about the right to sue and everything else. They have the right. The right is there and neither the Senate bill nor the House bill denies that right. We strengthen it with the reporting and then make the reports public so they can be attained, and they can avoid going to court on cases and avoid trial lawyers. So this particular bill is agreed to by this particular trial lawyer--either the Senate or the House version this evening, right now. I would vote for either one of them. But I think we can get a much better bill with the Senate bill. I wanted to correct the comments made about the trial lawyers because they have been there bringing peace and justice and safety to America's consumers. They got us this far, and I am proud to commend the trial lawyers for doing their work and saving lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to emphasize the bipartisanship of the request made by my distinguished chairman, the Senator from Arizona, to get some kind of consent for S. 3059, the bill dealing with, of course, the defective equipment. We had extensive hearings. Let me emphasize several things that we learned during the hearings. One, generally speaking, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been--I do not want to say defunct; I will use an elaborative; dormant. The testimony showed there had not been a single recall ordered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in five years. They had not ordered a recall. Now, of course, I have kept up on this because I have had to stand in the well defending my trial lawyer friends who really bring about far more safety than one would normally suspect. In the 5-year period, there have been 99 million recalls. And everybody can write a thank-you note to Mark Robinson in the Pinto case. He never collected a cent in his punitive damages. But once industry realized there could be just that--lawsuits --then they began to voluntarily have recalls. And that is what occurred here. This defective tire situation, causing multiple deaths--over 100 that we know about in the United States--was not a result of recalls ordered by NHTSA. More or less, the lawsuits, even though gagged, had really brought it to the attention of NHTSA to get off the dime, wake up, and start acting. So we brought together now a measured safety precaution where this will not occur again. And again, it has been simmered down somewhat from the unanimous vote. We have been working, on both sides, with consumer product safety officials, with the tire companies. I talked to the tire companies themselves. Their main objection, in a way, to that bill was dealing with foreign defects, in reporting foreign defects and otherwise. Of course, you can call it the A tire here in the United States and manufacture the B tire in another country like it is different, but it is the same tire. So we would want to know about the recalls in Saudi Arabia, which started first, in order to bring the attention here of the Firestone defect. So we worked it out. Now here we have a unanimous report out. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as he just said a moment ago, had no objection to that bill coming up because he voted for it to be reported favorably to the floor of the Senate. Otherwise, the distinguished majority leader, as a member of our committee, voted for it. So there has to be an untying of this snarl or knot so that we can get things done. The only reason we cannot get it done is that we cannot offer an amendment to the conference report. If the conference report were an item just called up, we could call up this amendment, have a time limit for 10 minutes to a side, and easily adopt or reject the amendment, which was the bill, S. 3059. But, of course, it is a conference report, and under the rules we cannot just bring it up as an amendment. I say that so everybody will understand. But as the distinguished chairman of our committee, Senator McCain, pointed out, we could easily agree to give it some kind of consideration--an hour to a side. It could be called up so we can stop this indiscriminate killing on the highways due to faulty equipment. I think it ought to be emphasized that we found this out really as in getting past the gag orders. I do not like these gag orders, but sometimes they do promote settlements of judicial disputes. So we do not have anything in the bill in relation to the gag orders. But when you get lawsuits--that means that you have gone to a lawyer; you have a serious injury or you maybe have a death case, or whatever it is--so when you get multiple lawsuits, then that notice is given, of course, to NHTSA, and we can act from there. But it is a studied, deliberate, measured response. Generally speaking, they don't ever agree. I do not want to infer the industry agrees this is a good bill, but listening to them, they didn't have any serious objection that I can discern. I support 100 percent Senator McCain's movement on the floor. He is not holding things up. We can get a Transportation conference report to the President here on Friday. We can come in here on Tuesday, if there is a holiday on Monday. We can easily get it to the President. And as has been indicated, it has already been approved. We know the White House folks watch and make sure their concerns are taken care of in the measure. So whether it gets there Friday, gets there Tuesday, next Wednesday, let's get on with having safety in America. The Senator from Arizona standing in the well is not being an obstructionist whatsoever, but trying to promote safety where everybody is agreed. But, as he said, there is a ``fix'' on somewhere because why can't we just call up the bill and get an agreement and everything else of that kind? Our distinguished leader, the Senator from Nevada, says perhaps there is not going to be any vote in the Senate. And the Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee says, oh yes, we are going to have a vote to move to proceed. But that is not going to get us anywhere because with the vote to proceed, we will still have plenty of time to talk. And we will talk into next week, and talk into Tuesday and Wednesday, and everything else, to show to the American people that there is some kind of responsibility with this political entity here, the Senate. Heavens above, when we have everybody agreed--it is totally bipartisan--why can't we move deliberately and bring it up and have a vote on it?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my displeasure and disappointment that two of the four major broadcast networks--NBC and Fox, have decided not to broadcast nationally, the presidential debate scheduled tonight between the Democratic and Republican candidates for President. This election is likely to be among the closest national races in the last twenty years. In exchange for the use of spectrum without the imposition of a fee, broadcasters have to fulfill their public interest obligation. I do not believe it is too much to presume that showing vital news information such as a presidential debate is encompassed in a broadcaster's public interest obligation. Instead of showing the debate, NBC is showing a divisional wildcard playoff baseball game, although they are apparently permitting their affiliates to broadcast the debate, if they so choose. Even more appalling, Fox is showing its new science fiction series produced by its own studio--Dark Angel--which I understand is particularly violent. On Sunday, the Washington Post ran a story entitled--``Even Hits can Miss in TV's New Economy.'' That article outlined the enormous incentives the Networks have to air programs in which they possess a vested financial interest. I quote-- Just as a 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. There it is Mr. President. Money trumps the political process once again. Fox has likely spent millions of dollars to develop and promote its new series, and NBC likely spent a significant amount of money to acquire the rights to broadcast a baseball playoff game. But Mr. President, when networks choose their own programming or sports programming over an event as significant as tonight's debate, they fail to meet their public interest obligation. Having to reschedule a baseball game or the debut of a new series created by their studios does not justify NBC or Fox precluding the public from having access to the presidential debates. I understand that one network, ABC, decided to postpone the debut of one of its new shows ``Gideon's Crossing'' by one night so as to air tonight's debate. That is called honoring your public interest obligation. By choosing not to air the debates, these other networks have undermined the integrity of the political process and our democracy, and engaged in a disrespect of the American electorate. The political process should be covered. The American people deserve such coverage. The grant of free spectrum worth billions of dollars to broadcasters comes with a public interest obligation that requires them to inform the public of issues of vital importance--not simply to do what is financially expedient.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about airport security, and in particular, S. 2440, the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000. Our aviation security system in the United States and abroad is of extreme importance in protecting the traveling public. Airport security is our first line of defense against terrorist attacks or other dangerous acts. We all know that our airport security personnel are underpaid and overworked. Congress sets minimum security standards for the airports and airlines to meet, but implementing the standards is not a government function--that part is left to the airlines, airports and security personnel. We need to ensure, then, that the industry and security screeners are better prepared and that higher training standards are implemented. Security workers are characterized by a high rate of turnover. According to GAO's testimony in our April 6 hearing this year on aviation security, from May 1998 through April 1999, turnover averaged 126 percent among screeners at 19 large airports, and the average wage for screeners in the United States averages $5.75 per hour with minimal benefits. We can't expect security personnel who are receiving minimum-wage or near-minimum wage to realize just how important their jobs are to the overall security of the airport and to have a commitment to their jobs. On the other hand, security personnel also need to be held individually responsible for security lapses. Peoples' lives are at stake when there are security lapses. Employees who fail to follow procedures should be suspended or terminated. S. 2440 directs the FAA Administrator to prescribe minimum standards for training security screeners that includes at least 40 hours of classroom instruction and at least 40 hours of practical training before an individual is qualified to provide security screening services at an airport. The FAA is committed to funding better, more effective equipment, but it was not going to finalize the regulation to improve training requirements for screeners and certification for screening companies until May 2001. With this legislation, improved training requirements will be implemented by September 30 of this year. S. 2440 also, among other things, requires airport operators and air carriers to develop comprehensive and recurring training programs that teach employees their role in airport security and how performance will be evaluated and treated. Another major problem at airports is secured-area access control weaknesses. People are getting into secured areas by following airport employees through security doors. This can be solved by employees simply closing the door behind them after they enter a secured area. S. 2440 requires airport operators and air carriers to develop programs that foster and reward compliance with access control requirements, discourage and penalize noncompliance, and enforce individual compliance requirements under FAA oversight. I believe this bill is a step in the right direction. Security personnel need to be aware of the importance of their job and they also need to be provided with the proper training to carry out their functions. Many of the areas covered by this bill consist of actions now being undertaken by the FAA. However, despite these actions, and consistent with the needs of the traveling public, a number of modifications will be debated with our House colleagues but I am confident we can put together a final bill and send it to the President for his signature.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize Spartanburg, South Carolina and the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind as hosts of the 2001 Pan American Games for the Blind. This is not only a distinguished honor for Spartanburg and for the school, but also for our state and our nation. Three hundred blind and visually-impaired elite athletes from 22 countries will compete in the third Pan Am Games for the Blind May 29-June 3, 2001 in Spartanburg. It marks the first time that these Games have been held in the United States. Previous competitions took place in Buenos Aires and Mexico City. Athletes will compete in track and field events, swimming and goal ball, a team sport developed specifically for the blind. Two students at the S.C. School for the Deaf and Blind, Royal Mitchell and Sonya Bell, will represent the United States in track and field events. The International Blind Sports Association selected the S.C. School for the Deaf and Blind as the site for the 2001 Games because of its excellent facilities and the strong credentials of the athletic staff. Since its founding in 1849, the school has served South Carolina well and proven itself worthy of this latest distinction. I wish all the participants in the 2001 Pan American Games for the Blind much success.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support in passing S. 1534, a bill to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, which the Commerce Committee reported out favorably this session. First, I would like to commend Senators Snowe and Kerry for their leadership on this very important reauthorization. In 1969, the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (the Stratton Commission) recommended that: ``. . . a Coastal Zone Management Act be enacted which will provide policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize federal grants-in-aid to facilitate the establishment of State Coastal Zone Authorities empowered to manage the coastal waters and adjacent land.'' In response to this recommendation, Congress, in 1972, enacted coastal zone management legislation to balance coastal development and preservation needs. To encourage state participation, the CZMA established a voluntary, two-stage, state assistance program. The first stage, awarded ``section 305'' grants to coastal states for development of coastal management programs meeting certain federal requirements. State programs which were judged by the Secretary of Commerce to meet those requirements received Federal approval and became eligible for the second stage of grants. This second stage, under section 306, provides ongoing assistance for states to implement their federally- approved coastal programs. All grants require equal matching funds from the state. Since passage of the CZMA, all 34 eligible states and territories have participated in the program to some degree. Currently, 34 of the 35 eligible coastal states and territories have Federally approved plans. The approved plans include more than 100,000 miles of coastline, which represents nearly all of the national total covered by the Act. The Ohio, Georgia, and Texas, and Minnesota state CZMA programs all received federal approval within the past three years. Of the eligible states, only Illinois is not participating. Let me note that the nature and structure of CZM programs vary widely from state to state. This diversity was intended by Congress. Some states, like North Carolina, passed comprehensive legislation as a framework for coastal management. Other states, like Oregon, used existing land use legislation as the foundation for their federally- approved programs. Finally, states like Florida and Massachusetts networked existing, single-purpose laws into a comprehensive umbrella for coastal management. The national program, therefore, is founded in the authorities and powers of the coastal states and local governments. Through the CZMA, these collective authorities are orchestrated to serve the ``national interest in effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone.'' This 28 year program is a success story of how the local, state and federal government can work together for the benefit of all who enjoy and rely on our coastal resources. I am pleased to report that S. 1534 reauthorizes and strengthens a program that works well. It provides total authorizations of over $136 million, and adds a new Coastal Community Grant Program under section 309A for states that want to focus on coastal community-based initiatives. This provision is aimed at addressing the need for Federal and state support of community-based planning, strategies, and solutions for local sprawl and development issues in the coastal zone. In addition, it strengthens and provides increased authorizations for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, natural labs operated by the states that support management-oriented research needed by coastal resource managers, as well as educational and interpretive programs to improve public awareness and understanding of the coastal environment. While the CZMA has proven greatly successful, the world has changed since 1972. Today, over half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of our shores--and more than 3,000 people move to the coast every day. In addition, more than 30 percent of the Gross Domestic Product is generated in the coastal zone. In my state of South Carolina, our beaches now attract millions of visitors every year, all year long, placing greater demands on our coastal resources than every before. And more and more people are choosing to move to the coast--making the coastal counties the fastest growing ones in the state. With population growth comes the demand for highways, shopping centers, schools, and sewers that permanently alter the landscape. If people are to continue to live and work on the coast, we must allow our states to do a better job of planning how we impact the very regions in which we all want to live. Strengthening the CZMA is one important step in addressing these problems. These changes also call for another look at our overall ocean and coastal policy, which is why Congress this year enacted the Oceans Act of 2000, with the strong bipartisan support, including that of Senators Snowe, Kerry, Stevens and Breaux. Through reauthorization and strengthening of the CZMA and creation of a new Ocean Policy Commission called for in the Oceans Act, we are on track in the year 2000 to continue and improve upon the good work started by the Stratton Commission in 1969.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Mike Mansfield's eulogy to his wife, Maureen, this past Tuesday at her funeral was simply beauty. It was vintage Mansfield--and any other comment would mar its eloquence. On behalf of the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and myself, I ask unanimous consent that it be included in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I cannot agree with the premise of the H1B Visa bill. Affluent America with all of its opportunities cannot be designated skill-short. I have been in the game of technical training for skills for years. At present we are attracting high-tech industries, like Black Baud, training computer operators overnight. Stop for a moment and analyze the zeal behind this movement. We have learned that 20 percent of Microsoft employees are part-time. The employees had brought a suit in 1992 so that they would receive stock options, health care and retirement benefits as other workers performing the same task. By 1998 these workers had prevailed in the courts, but Microsoft put them all on part-time employment. The trend in these high-tech industries is to part-time. Today this amounts to 20 to 30 percent of those at Redmond, Washington. In Silicon Valley 42 percent of the employ is part-time. So high-tech is not providing the paying jobs to support a middle class in America. High-tech is looking to bring in the so-called Indian or Chinese talented at a $40,000 per year rate. But these jobs can and should be trained for in the United States. In fact, that is what they have told the 38,700 textile workers in South Carolina who have lost their jobs since NAFTA. ``We have moved into a new economy'' is the cry with the rejoinder, ``retrain, retrain.'' So, as I set about retraining them for high-tech, the Congress prepares to superimpose 600,000 foreign trained before they have had a chance to compete in the new economy. Mind you me, I am devoted to advanced technology. I authored the successful advanced technology program now ongoing in the Department of Commerce. I believe America's security rests with its superiority in technology. But high- tech doesn't provide the number of jobs that manufacture does. Microsoft has 21,000 employees in Redmond, Washington; Boeing has 100,000. And high-tech doesn't pay. I know firsthand that we can train the cotton picker to become a skilled automobile manufacturer. We have done this at BMW in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Incidentally, the quality of the product of the South Carolina BMW plant exceeds the quality of the Munich product. What we are really facing is a foot race for the high-tech political money. I saw this in the farcical Y2K law adopted by the Congress. We saw it again in the foot race for the estate tax legislation to take care of 100 new Internet billionaires. And now we presume a non-existent national crisis in H1B for the high- tech political contributions. I am not joining in this charade. I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``How To Create a Skilled-Labor Shortage'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, now here is one thing with which I can agree, and not be in a minority. Dr. Joab M. Lesesne, Jr. has not only headed Wofford College with distinction for 28 years, but he has brought luster to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities as its Chairman. A man of many talents, Joe served as a general in the South Carolina National Guard and is presently Chairman of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Governing Board. Dr. Shi, the eminent President of Furman University, cites this record better than I in a recent editorial in the Greenville News. I ask that the editorial be reprinted in the Record. The material follows: [From the Greenville News, Sept. 17, 2000] Joe Lesesne Stands as a True American Hero (By David Shi) In an age with few heroes, it becomes even more important to honor those who stand above the crowd. Last week, Furman University had the privilege of bestowing an honorary doctoral degree on Joab Lesesne, the recently retired president of Wofford College. He had served it well--with a special genius that everyone observed yet no one can define. Joe Lesesne was raised on a college campus. His father, a Wofford graduate, served as president of Erskine College. After graduating from Erskine, the younger Lesesne went on to earn his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in history from the University of South Carolina. He began his career at Wofford in 1964 as an assistant professor of history, and he soon distinguished himself in the classroom. Lesesne was a luminous teacher who made the past shine with interest and significance. Professor Lesesne was appointed assistant dean in 1967. Soon thereafter, he implemented the college's interim term, a four-week winter learning program that has become an indispensable part of a Wofford education. He later became director of development and then dean of the college. In 1972, at the ripe age of 34, he was named Wofford's ninth president. Lesesne quickly realized that going from the faculty to the presidency means abandoning righteousness for pragmatism. He also discovered that a college president needs the endurance of an athlete, the wisdom of a Solomon and the courage of a lion. But perhaps most important is to have the stomach of a goat in order to accommodate all of the civic club luncheons, campus banquets and meals-on-the-run. As a resolute champion of the distinctive virtues of residential liberal arts colleges, Lesesne led Wofford through a remarkable era of progress, change and achievement. The college's endowment soared during his long tenure, new buildings were constructed, and he helped attract a stronger, more diverse faculty and student body. Along the way, President Lesesne displayed extraordinary composure and resilience. Hard to surprise and even harder to shock, he displayed the magnanimity of a saint in dealing with complaints and crises. President Lesesne became a leader of national prominence within the higher education community. He was the first Southerner to chair the board of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, and he headed the council of presidents of South Carolina's private colleges. In addition, he is a retired major general in the South Carolina Army National Guard, and he continues to chair the South Carolina Commission on Natural Resources. Yet the real value of a career can sometimes be better gauged by a person's character than by a public portfolio. Joe Lesense is a genial representative of a fast vanishing world of grace, civility, loyalty, faith and moral rectitude. A warm man with a big heart, he has no enemies--even among those who disagree with him. Known for his casual intensity and refreshing humility, he loves to tell stores and to catch fish. For almost 30 years as a college president, Joe Lesesne manifested unshaken nerve, rescuing wit, and, above all, a love for Wofford that has never waned. He had a special affection for students. He teased them, entertained them, inspired them and guided them. They responded with equal affection. It has been invigorating for those of us still in our age of impetuous vanities to associate with such a wise colleague. I cannot imagine anyone more effective at helping the people of this state appreciate the important role played by Wofford and the other private liberal arts colleges. Joe Lesesne is one of those refreshing people who prefers to grin rather than scowl, banter rather than pontificate. What a wonderful mentor he has been to me and many others. In his compassionate awareness of others, in his instinctive respect for them, in his declared willingness to help, in his courtesy, tolerance and gentleness, Joe Lesesne demonstrated that the highest intelligence is at its most fertile and expressive when allied to the deepest humanity. As to all of these traits, he has provided us the great gift of his example. Blessed are those who perform good works and earn our respect and admiration. Thanks, Joe.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one would think from the comments made by my distinguished friend from New Jersey and others that the issue was the welfare and benefit of the People's Republic of China. I have no particular gripe at this moment about China. I think, as the Senator from New Jersey pointed out, it is working. China has a very competitive trade policy. They are making improvements industrially, economically, even environmentally, and perhaps with labor standards. That is not the issue. The issue is the viable, competitive trade policy of the United States of America. You would think that we had the finest, most wonderfully competitive trade policy there could be. The fact is, we have a $350 billion trade deficit that we know of, and this year, 2000, it is going to approximate $400 billion. Last month, the Department of Commerce announced we had lost 69,000 manufacturing jobs. The fact is, we have gone from the end of World War II, with some 42 percent of our workforce in manufacturing, down to 12 percent. As the head of Sony--the Japanese just beat us in softball last night, and they are beating us in trade--as the head of Sony, Akio Morita, said, that world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power. We hear high tech, high tech. They are running around here as if they have discovered something. Senator, you don't understand global competition, they say. We have high tech. We want to get away from the smokestack jobs to the high-tech jobs. Let me say a word about that. I know something about both. I have both. I would much rather have BMW than Oracle or Microsoft. Why do I say that? BMW is paying $21 an hour. A third of Microsoft's workers are paid $10 an hour, part time, temporary workers, Silicon Valley. Forty- two percent of the workers in Silicon Valley are part-time, temporary workers. I am not looking for temporary jobs. I am looking for hardcore middle America jobs. That is the competition. The competition in global competition is market share and jobs. We treat foreign trade as foreign aid. Free trade, free trade. They say: You don't understand high tech. The truth is, we have a deficit in the balance of trade in advanced technology products with the People's Republic of China. Last year, it was $3.2 billion. It will approximate $5 billion this year. But Senator, agriculture. Agriculture? There is a glut of agriculture in the People's Republic. Once they solve their transportation and distribution problems, they are not only going to feed the 1.3 billion, but the rest of the world. Come now, the 800 million farmers they have at the moment can certainly outproduce the 3.5 million farmers we have in America. We had a deficit in the balance of trade of $218 million last year with the People's Republic of China. People don't understand where we are. I have a deficit in the balance of trade of cotton. I am importing cotton from the People's Republic of China. They say: Wait a minute, what about the airplanes? Well, yes, they have orders for 1,600, we just heard a minute ago. We will cut that in half. That is really 800, because 50 percent, according to Bill Greider of the 777 Boeing plane, is going to be made in downtown Shanghai. The MD 3010, 70 percent of that aircraft is made in the People's Republic of China. So what are we doing? Are we transferring all of the wonderful middle-class American jobs to China? And we are running all over the country hollering, ``I am for the working families, I am for the working families,'' when, since NAFTA, they have eliminated 30,700 working families in my little State of South Carolina. We lost over 500,000 over the Nation. So we are eliminating working families, and we say, ``But China is going to really start enforcing and adhering and be made accountable.'' Not at all. Japan is not. Incidentally, Japan has been in the WTO for 5 years and it hasn't opened up yet. I don't know where they get the idea that once we get this particular agreement and China in the WTO, it is going to open its market. That doesn't open markets. Otherwise accountable? The People's Republic see what happened with the United States and Japan and with the United States and the United Kingdom. The President was up in New York the week before last with Prime Minister Blair, and the Prime Minister is fighting for a thousand jobs, and the President of the United States is exporting them like gang busters and fighting for bananas that we don't even produce. Fighting for bananas. Come on. When are we going to sober up and get a competitive trade policy? For a second, I don't have the idea that we ought to cut off trade; that is ridiculous because it is impossible. We are going to trade with China. I just want to cut the word ``permanent'' out and have a look- see and try to get organized a trade policy whereby we can correlate 20 different departments and agencies, our Department of Commerce and Trade, and start really competing in a controlled global economy. The fight there, of course, as I see it, is for market share. The fight is for jobs. We are not doing it. I guess my time is pretty well limited. Alexander Hamilton enunciated the competitive trade policy of the People's Republic of China in 1789. The first was for the Seal of the United States. The second bill that passed this Congress in July 1789 was a 50-percent tariff on 60 articles. Protectionism. We learn how to build up. The Brits suggested to us that we trade with them what we produce best and they trade back what they produce best. Free trade, free trade. Hamilton, in his writing ``Report on Manufacturers,'' told the Brits: Bug off, we are not going to remain your colony, exporting our raw materials, our agriculture, our timber, our iron ore, and importing your manufactured products. And therein is the policy of the People's Republic of China. I welcome it. I welcome the competition. But you can't find it here in the Congress. You can't find it in the Presidential race. You would think we had a good policy of some kind. Nothing on the floor. People are coming up here, like myself, reciting their little positions, with no debate. Somebody said ``invigorating debate.'' They couldn't care less. This vote has been fixed. This thing has been fixed since midsummer. You know it and I know it. They will give you time. There is nobody seated on the other side. Let the Record show that. Absolutely nobody is in a chair on the Republican side of the Senate as I speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is too kind. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will not take that long. My distinguished colleague, the chairman of our Finance Committee is really is one of our outstanding Members. I have every respect for his leadership--but on this particular score, he talks about the great market we have and that this amendment would require the President to intervene to obtain a certain balance of trade. Not at all. What I am trying to do is avoid a deficit in the balance. As they say, they are a great market. As long as the soybean association is right, as long as the wheat association is right, and the other 63-some-odd associations are right, you will never hear any more about this amendment. It will be dead on the books because nothing will have to be triggered. I am taking their word for it. I know otherwise. I have been in the agricultural business. When you mention the American Farm Bureau, I almost have to laugh. They have to do with everything but with farming. It is an insurance company. They have many times come out against the interests of the farmer. I have taken an agriculture case, on the dairy score, all the way to the Supreme Court. I learned that my dairy farmers put their milk out on the stoop, that on the first of the month it is picked up, and they don't learn for 30 days--or sometimes 2 months--whether that is going to be classed grade A, class I grade A, or whether it is going to be class III grade C. There is a tremendous difference in price. It is up to the processor to determine whether it is going to go into processing ice cream, cottage cheese, or whether it is going to be pasteurized and put on the stoop as class I grade A. So the poor farmer keeps his mouth shut because he has to get along. In short, the farmer is in the hands of the processor and the distributor in most instances. That is why you have these organizations and Archer-Daniels-Midland, Cargill, everybody else. They can run around and easily get these resolutions. But the hard, cold fact is, I am here for the wheat farmer, for the soybean farmer, for the corn farmer. All I am saying is, you are telling me I am going to be able to expand this wonderful market. Well, I am looking, and seeing it has contracted, and overall we have a deficit right now. I know 3\1/2\ million cannot outproduce 800 million. I know I am obligated under the agreement to bring the 800 million up to snuff with the 3\1/2\ million. So I am saying: Wait a minute here. Let's not go pell-mell down the road and ruin the one great thing we have, and that is America's agriculture. You ruined the manufacturing. Now you want to ruin its agriculture. So that is why my amendment is here. Oh, yes, there is one other point. China will gain access to the WTO. The distinguished Senator and I agree on that. But he thinks that, ipso facto, it opens the market. Japan, for 5 years has been a member of the WTO. Try to get some of these things into Japan. For those who are solely unknowing, for those who have not studied the case, if you think being a member of the WTO opens markets, you are wrong. Japan is the best example, and China is going the same way. Since they have signed this agreement, and since Ambassador Barshefsky said we did not have to have any more technology transfers in order to do business, Qualcom and many others have learned otherwise since that testimony before the Finance Committee. Amendment No. 4137

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am ready, if I may, to just respond, if you don't mind, for a couple minutes. How much time do I have?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time on amendment No. 4135, and I call up amendment No. 4137 on the Export- Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the fact of the matter is, I know the managers of the bill have very important business to engage them, but what we are seeing here is really not just an insult to the issue at hand and this particular Senator, but what we are seeing is an insult to the Senate as the most deliberative body in the world. What they do, with respect, rather than engaging in debate, is go into the morning hour and talk about prescription medicine and Wen Ho Lee or anybody else they want to talk about--anything except trade. They know they have the vote fixed. We have had the requirement, under the Pastore rule, that you address your comments to the subject at hand. I never have wanted to call that rule on the colleagues, but I will be forced to if we are going to come back and just have morning hours. I was in a caucus earlier here at lunch. People are trying to get out of town tomorrow. I am trying to cooperate with respect to having early votes. I am willing to yield back the remainder of my time on this one. If I can hear any disputed evidence or testimony from the other side, I will be glad, then, to debate it. But if that is what they want to do, I will move on to the next amendment. I hope they get the message so we get somebody to the floor and move the amendments just as expeditiously as we can. I suggest the absence of a quorum and charge the other side because they don't care. I mean they are not even using the time.