Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. And the timing of this, just when we were assuring Russia that NATO was a purely defensive force, we were admitting three new countries. We destroyed the overall policy. This was a mistake from the word go and they don't want to try to explain it; they are embarrassed to do so. But the Senator and I can bring it to a head and we can develop a policy. They are running around politicking and traveling the world. But we have a serious commitment, and I don't want to have any GIs hunkered down there and afraid to walk on the streets, with the KLA in charge. Meanwhile, we are sitting back here thinking this is a wonderful commitment and America is keeping NATO together. No.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I commend our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and my distinguished leader, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, on this initiative. You learn through experience. We had bitter experiences, as politicians, on the floor of the Senate during the war in Vietnam. Someone tells me that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, has taken exception to this particular amendment. I could only say to my distinguished colleague from Arizona that I feel very keenly, if I knew in 1966 what I know now about Vietnam, I could have saved or participated, let's say, in the saving of at least 40,000 of the 58,000 lives we lost. It took McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, almost 25 years to admit it was a mistake. And the question arises in my mind as to how long it is going to take us to acknowledge that this, too, is a mistake. Mind you me, I am not for withdrawal. I think this is a deliberate initiative, well considered, and deserves strong support. Otherwise, I am 100 percent for the troops wherever they are. The record will show that the last $500 million that had to be appropriated at the request of a general for Vietnam was made on the motion from the Senator from South Carolina. But I visited with those troops. I have seen, in a very short period, certain disturbing things in Kosovo. And to watch my friend, the Senator from Delaware, dignify this mistake, and all the spurious arguments made, is almost amusing, in the sense that one of the things he says is ``to wish for a nation to be both ignorant and free, wishing for a nation that never was and never can be''--quoting Thomas Jefferson. He says if you look for Europe to be both Balkan and stable, it is wishing for something that never was and never can be. I happen to agree, Mr. President. That is what disturbs the Senator from South Carolina with the positioning of troops who are there for battle and not as a police force. We are really ruining the morale of our troops in this kind of commitment, not following through. They were supposed to have been out in a year's period, gone from any kind of military deployment, and we were supposed to have had the substitution, of course, of the police force and the allies. It is a very weak alliance that has not put up the money. The chaos grows by day and the danger is in the morning paper. We have five sectors in Kosovo. You learn very quickly that the Russians are not supportive, and that is why we don't have the police force. You learn from the briefings that the Greeks are not for this particular deployment. The French, comme ci, comme ca. It is intimated even by the Senator from Delaware that they are not in support. I asked the Brits in London later about their withdrawal of a certain area and they said they were too stretched. But more ominously, you will find on page A-18 of the Washington Post this morning an article entitled ``Russia Strengthens Yugoslav Ties.'' It says: At the end of the two-day visit in Moscow today, Yugoslav Foreign Minister Zivadin Jovanovic praised ``cooperation" between the two countries. Russia granted Belgrade a $102 million loan and announced the sale of $32 million worth of oil to Yugoslavia. The loan comes at a time when the International Monetary Fund, whose activities are underwritten by U.S. taxpayers, is considering resumption of loans to Russia. . . . Putin's policy is consistent with Russian sentiment toward Yugoslavia. Moscow opposed the war, considered the NATO bombing campaign illegal because it was initiated without the specific approval of the Security Council, where Russia holds a veto. Moscow views the war crimes accusations against Belgrade as politically motivated. That is what the distinguished Senator from Delaware was trying to dignify. They called it the fifth column in the war with Spain. We have fifth columns, as I can see it, militarily deployed in three sectors. Russian troops take a man from Moscow, and while we can't get our own weak alliance to respond and come up with a police force to keep law and order, we find Russians can get hundreds of millions of dollars here to support Milosevic. This is a good deployment? I see a mistake. I will never forget there was a mistake in diplomacy. There isn't any question about it. I will never forget. I will quote what our friend, Henry Kissinger, said: Rambouillet was not a negotiation--as is often claimed--but an ultimatum. This marked an astounding departure for an administration that had entered office proclaiming its devotion to the U.N. Charter and multilateral procedures. I could read further, but there is no question that what we have is not statecraft, but a mistake in a military plan. There isn't any question that they don't want to admit it publicly, but the Secretary of State thought Milosevic would cry uncle in 3 days. We didn't have any military plan to take over. In order to try to backstop some kind of support and say this is serious, and it is not a mistake--``ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing''--they tried to equate this with the holocaust. Come, come. We got briefed at the time. There were 100,000 Albanians living peacefully in Belgrade, where Milosevic was also living. This wasn't ethnic cleansing in the sense of a holocaust--to find a person of a particular race or religion and eliminate them. They weren't getting along. Thank heavens we didn't send Madeleine Albright to Northern Ireland; we sent Senator Mitchell. He knows that in order to get persons and populations with differences together, it takes long, hard work, and no ultimatum. If we had sent the Secretary of State, she would have said you either agree to do this by 12 o'clock tomorrow, or we are going to start bombing you. So we got caught without a military plan. There weren't any grand troops ready--even to come from Germany at the particular time. Let's say Milosevic didn't like the majority group down in Kosovo. We had all kinds of briefings to the effect that the differences were exacerbating, as they say, and what happened was they would kill a Serb police on the corner and then Milosevic would come and burn out the entire block, and that kind of thing. But when we started the bombing, we declared this a war zone. Brother, when you have a war zone, you have a right, title, and interest to clear the enemy. So immediately Milosevic went to work, and that is what led to the million refugees spilling over the borders into Albania, Macedonia, into Montenegro, and anywhere they could. That was another mistake. There was a mistake, of course, when they called this a ``peacekeeping'' because there wasn't any peace agreement. The brass in Kosovo, including the four-star general, General Shelton told me what happened. The Joint Chiefs resent me saying this, but what happened is that both sides ran out of targets. Milosevic had already cleared the area on the one hand, and we had run out of targets down in Kosovo. So we have peacekeeping troops there when there is no peace agreement. What happens? All we have to refer to is what others have said, not just what I saw. What I saw was highly disturbing--our American military deployed and a hunkered down containment. They took us to a little town with a population of about 67,000 people. We were in the city. But we were guarding a block with Serbs, including a few families there. We had a GI at one end, a GI at the other end, and one GI in the middle to take them to the shopping market. They had that many more Serbs. So they took convoys of them up to Belgrade to shop. Is this peacekeeping? The columnist said: The war has done nothing to bring the two sides together. On the contrary, it has intensified ancient animosities. What do they say in the Washington Post? Michael Kelly says: How safe is Kosovo, how secure? Safer and more secure than it was a year ago, but still, in any real terms, not safe, not secure and becoming less so all the time. Human rights abuses and serious crimes continue to be committed at an alarming rate, particularly against members of minority communities, with virtual immunity. I was briefed to the effect that it was 95 percent Albanian. Let me quote further: Meanwhile, as predicted, members of the theoretically disbanded Kosovo Liberation Army have emerged as leaders of a criminal mobocracy that is the real power on the streets. That is who is keeping the peace--the KLA, and mobocracy rules the streets. What did the GAO say? This past weekend, they gave the report to the Armed Services Committee. . . . little progress had been made toward creating peaceful, democratic governments committed to political and ethic reconciliation. . . . the former warring parties largely retain their wartime goals. We haven't achieved peace. Quoting further: . . . it also criticized the United Nations for failing to provide needed resources, particularly in Kosovo where an international police force has been slow to get off the ground. ``. . . an escalation of violent incidents or armed conflict'' over the next five years, not just in Bosnia and Kosovo, but also in Macedonia and in the two remaining republics of the former Yugoslavia, Montenegro as well as Serbia. We deployed American GIs in the middle of that mess, and they don't want to even discuss it. They don't want to bring it to a head. Senator Warner and Senator Byrd want to bring it to a head. Let's develop some sort of policy because we have a nonpolicy situation. We have no real support from the allies, as I pointed out. The main thing is that the Russians are all deployed all around and are giving support to Milosevic. Of course, Milosevic is strengthened in Europe. We heard from General Clark about how the Europeans felt so safe--not at all. They had a very interesting story in Time magazine a month ago whereby Vaclav Havel had befriended his former Czech native, Secretary Albright, our Secretary of State. He wished for her to succeed him as the President of the Czech Republic. The only problem is that 75 percent of the people in the Czech Republic are opposed to ``Madeleine's War.'' This has been a mistake--in diplomacy, in military deployment, in peacekeeping, in getting up the support, and everything else. It hurts the Fed's policy. It hurts foreign policy. We have a group going to Moscow at the end of this month that will probably call on President Putin. I don't have the unmitigated gall to mention to President Putin about Chechnya. ``Here, here,'' he would say, ``Senator, your country invaded the sovereign country of Yugoslavia and Kosovo without a United Nations resolution, and on your own you just took over and started bombing because they wouldn't agree, and you are asking us about Chechnya?'' What kind of foreign policy do we have? What kind of Kosovo policy do we have? What kind of military policy do we have? When are we going to admit that this is a mistake. Secretary Albright says we are going to rebuild the infrastructure, and after we get the churches, the roads, the airports, the schools, and the hospitals reconstructed, and the industries, people will go to work, and they will hug and love each other. Well, we have had 30 years of that in Ireland. From the time I met Martin Agronsky in a restaurant, as he came out after a 3-week visit in London, he said they would never get together for 30 years. And he was right. I have been to Northern Ireland. They have the hospitals, the roads, the airports, and the infrastructure, and they are not hugging and loving yet. Apparently, according to the Senator from Delaware, a stable Europe or a stable Balkans was never and never will be. I don't think this is the proper military deployment. We have to bring this to a head and acknowledge the mistake we made, and do the best we can. The best we can is to follow the Warner-Byrd resolution whereby we have the people behind us. I will make one political comment. Governor Bush wandered aimlessly into this debate yesterday. If I were the President of the United States, I would never want troops committed in a deliberate fashion as these were without the support of the American Congress, the American people, and the Senate. I would not want them to give me a basket case, if I were elected President. But I would want, by gosh, some requirement that we look at it in an objective fashion, and consider my military, my foreign policy advisers, and look at what was on the ground to see if it was worsening, as it is today. We keep saying we are going to get rid of Saddam Hussein, Milosevic is going to fall, and Castro is going to disappear. When will we ever learn? The Warner-Byrd resolution helps us to begin to learn so we can actually discuss this in an intelligent fashion. The arrogance of America came out markedly in the comments of the Senator from Delaware--that were it not for Americans none of this could happen; not at all. I hope they get a European defense force. I hope they take over. I voted in 1971, before the Senator from Delaware came here, to cut the troops in Germany back to 5,000. That was the Mansfield amendment. Let's not say we are responsible for everything and anywhere, and that it only can happen with us. I think they are going to have to take over. I think when they take over it will be dealt with properly. I, again, thank the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from West Virginia. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly right; overwhelming majority.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right, though we are really debating the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. We knew, and we could see it. We went into the different parts of that debate. To get down to all of these extraneous things my friend from Delaware brings out is not the point at all. We are not trying to send a message to Milosevic. We are trying to send a message to ourselves; to our policy; send a message to the GIs out there that is not willy-nilly. General Clark said only yesterday that it could be 5 years. Come on. Does he think we will keep America's GIs out there in Kosovo 5 years?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, may I follow these two Senators for a period of 20 minutes?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me first commend the chairman of our Armed Services Committee. He has been to war twice. He served as our Secretary of the Navy. He has a conscience with respect to the GIs now deployed in Kosovo. That is the reason I rise this afternoon. My chairman, ranking member, and former majority leader, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, has a little bit of laryngitis. He is feeling well. He is at the committee markup right now with respect to the Labor, Health and Human Resources bill in appropriations over in the Hart Building. He wanted someone to be able to respond. I understood the opposition to this particular amendment were on their way to the floor. That is why I came. Maybe the better part of wisdom would be to say thank you and there is no debate, and when we get in one, then Senator Byrd can speak for himself. However, I share that concern for our troops, their morale and the deployment of a so-called peacekeeping mission. There isn't any peace. There isn't any policy. All we have to do is look at the record. The record shows best that we debated airstrikes and we were split down the middle, 58-41, March 23, under the Biden amendment. We had the McCain amendment deploying armed forces in Kosovo, saying let's go to war. That was May 4, 1999. It was tabled by a motion of 78-22. The record shows, at best, we have a lukewarm endorsement, maybe favoring some airstrikes, but against taking the life of a GI. That is the military policy right now. With respect to diplomacy, the policy is one of a so-called multiethnic society, as I remember Secretary Albright saying. I visited Kosovo shortly after the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee did this year. I was never briefed on the importance of a multiethnic society . . . maybe the region should be partitioned. But that isn't the policy of the United States. I tried to verify the multiethnic policy with all of our experts deployed there-- the Army generals, the Navy admirals, and everyone else. I could find no support for any kind of multiethnic society in light of what was going on on the ground. Here we have another Vietnam, not in the sense of deploying more and more troops, but actually having a military deployment in an impossible situation. Don't go forward, don't go backward, just stay there; we will send movies. It is sort of embarrassing to see our military hunkered down like chickens in a hailstorm at Camp Bonsteel and everybody bragging that we have wooden buildings and catwalks through the snow and we can get hamburgers at McDonald's. That is not for the GI, the one who volunteers to serve in the military. He is looking to be trained and go to battle for our national security. To address these conditions that continue and languish is a reason I am confident Senator Byrd introduced his amendment, which is part of our bill. And certainly it is my feeling, likewise, that we have a responsibility here. The other day we had the 25th anniversary of Vietnam. The Secretary of Defense said, almost 25 years later, it was a mistake. Are we going to have to wait 25 years to resolve Kosovo? Bosnia was to last 1 year. That policy has been going on for 5, 6 years now. We just cannot willy-nilly go along with mixed policies. Of course, the clarion call for the Kosovo initiative was ethnic cleansing. At the time they were briefing us, they had 100,000 Albanians living peacefully in Belgrade. Milosevic lived down the street. Heavens above, this was not the Holocaust. Everybody confuses ethnic cleansing with enemy cleansing. When you start bombing somebody and you make that the enemy, an outright open warfare, then the other side has got the right, title, and interest to clear the area of any on the side of the enemy. More ethnic cleansing occurred after the bombing than before the bombing. Actually, it was enemy cleansing because Milosevic is a cagey fellow and a scoundrel and we all know it. He says to himself, whoopee, now I can go in there and get rid of the real Albanians that have been giving me problems down there in Kosovo. And he did it. That is exactly what was happening. The talk now is trying to deal with, ex post facto, a million refugees spilling over into Macedonia, down into Albania and back up into Montenegro and elsewhere. But the real spilling over and the cleansing was enemy cleansing. We are trying to talk about war and victory, trying to give dignity to a mistake. No. 1, it was a flawed policy from the word go. We came in where there weren't any guys with the white hats. It wasn't the good guys versus the bad guys. Anybody who knows anything about Kosovo and this part of the world knows that both sides are really something else. I would not want an American to go to battle for either side. I say that advisedly because it has been proven. When we went there earlier this year, what did we learn? Yes, there was violence upon violence upon violence. It was continuing. And 95 percent of the violence was being inflicted by Albanian on Albanian. It is interesting to me to see here, recently, in The Economist, that: The war has done nothing to bring the two sides together. On the contrary, it has intensified ancient animosities. Then going down it says: At present, the Albanians can look to NATO for their security and to the U.N. for their administration, while many of them traffic in drugs and other contraband and generally profit from the legal limbo in which they live. Peacekeeping? Where is the peace? Where is the peace? We are now saying we have a deployment for peacekeeping. It is an enforced cease- fire. I was briefed by the brass in Kosovo. They said both sides ran out of targets. We hit all the targets we wanted to hit. We were even going up there knocking out the Chinese Embassy. Of course, Milosevic had gotten rid of everything and cleansed everything he possibly could. What a wonderful war. We won. Now we want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Come on, don't give us that. We were there in the little town of Urosevac. The President visited that town at Christmas time. They had a big show. They had 400-some troops, and they all were hunkered down in the city hall. You could tell the 65,000 or 70,000 residents of the town were not friendly. We drove around and they glowered at us. They were in charge. We were not in charge of the town the President was in. We were not in charge of anything, really, in Kosovo. We have deployments here with walls around them, fences and everything else. We do not wander down the street or outside the compound. Similarly, in Mitrovica, we have a GI at one end of the block, a GI at the other end of the block, and a GI in the middle of the block on a 24-hour, three times eight, 24-hour routine, guarding people going to the grocery store. It's public knowledge what the reporter says in The Economist about this thing not working: The war has done nothing to bring the two sides together. On the contrary, it has intensified ancient animosities. There are the soldiers in the peacekeeping force, having to spend 6 months away from their families. People hate to waste time. We, in the Senate, we love wasting time. There is nothing to do tomorrow and nothing on Monday. We cannot wait for November and the Presidential election to be over with so we can all go back to work. But the normal attitude is not to waste time and, you see, that is exactly what is happening in Kosovo. I finally understood about the Albanians when I was in London and I met with one of the leaders of Parliament. He said the Albanians are bringing 14- and 15-year-old girls to Portsmouth and forcing them into prostitution. They have drugs all over England now. He said: It's the worst threat and problem that we have here in England. He said: I never thought I would ever say anything good about Milosevic, but I can sort of understand his problem. That is not to say Milosevic is a good guy, or the Albanians are all bad. But you generally get a feel for what is out there and what is going on when responsible people tell you: Look, all the Afghanistan drugs are coming up through Kosovo, and into Europe. Instead of keeping the peace, we are keeping the flow of drugs. The GI with any common sense is saying to himself: Where is this peace we have here? We have one fellow who murdered another one but we had to let him go in 48 hours because we only had 93 slots in the prison and the United Nations had not supplied a police force. The United Nations had not supplied a court system. The United Nations had not put up their money for a prison system. So we go right to the ultimatum. If this is diplomacy, let me quote none other than our friend, the former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger: Rambouillet was not a negotiation--as is often claimed--but an ultimatum. This marked an astounding departure for an administration that had entered office proclaiming its devotion to the UN Charter and multilateral procedures. And on and on. The transformation of Alliance from a defensive military grouping into an institution prepared to impose its values by force occurred in the same month that three former Soviet satellites joined NATO. That is none other than Kissinger himself. In that light, I am glad we did not send Secretary Albright to Northern Ireland. We sent Senator George Mitchell instead. But under the Albright policy, you either agree by 12 o'clock midnight or we go bombing. Come on. This thing is afoul, amiss, and a mistake, and we don't have to wait for 25 years to know it. Those are my words, the words of the Senator from South Carolina, and not the words of the Senator from West Virginia. He will be glad at the first of the week--I am confident he will be in good shape again. He will explain it, no doubt, to everyone's satisfaction. We all agree on one thing. With GIs deployed on account of our mistakes, we are going to give them every dollar necessary, every benefit, every support we possibly can. We cannot possibly continue day in and day out in limbo with a flawed policy and act like it is a policy. It is a nonpolicy and a flawed policy and a mistaken policy. We have to somehow bring it to a head. How do we do that in a deliberate, tactful manner? What we say is: Look, get these countries of the U.N. to support it. Of course, we learned at the briefings that the Greeks were not for it in their sector. They did not like it. The French, are comme ci comme ca. The Soviets never were for it, and they do not adhere to us. NATO responds to Moscow. The Brits are pulling out. In one place they pulled out, 3 hours later a church was burned. I asked our British friends what their reason for pulling out was and they said they were too stretched. We are stretched, too. We have nine peacekeeping missions. We have Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the Congo, and East Timor. There are four more we are going to be asking for. The GIs are given a policeman's duty in a totally hostile place where one cannot take sides and one has to defend oneself and not act like an authority on keeping the peace but, by gosh, keep out of trouble. We are not in charge in Kosovo, nor is the U.N., nor is NATO. We have invaded a sovereign country without a full debate. We made that mistake in Vietnam. We have the feeling of responsibility. I understand the distinguished Senator from Arizona is very much in favor of Kosovo. I could have saved him 4 or 5 years in prison if I knew at the time I got to the Senate in 1966 that McNamara felt Vietnam was a mistake. Come on. Are we going to continue just because we do not want to send a message to Milosevic? Do my colleagues really think that Milosevic does not know what is going on? He has already removed the opposition authorities in Montenegro. If he went in there tonight, what would we do? Nothing. He is corralling his support. Read this week's Time magazine about what the Air Force did not hit. I wish my colleagues would get a copy and read it because it reports we were misled in that particular briefing about how we destroyed so many tanks, so many planes, so many targets; we just ruined the country. Our distinguished friend, the Secretary of State, said: Give peace a chance; it takes time to get the roads and the bridges and industry and the hospitals and the air fields all repaired. I remember a visit I had when I first came to the Senate. I was at the Connaught in London having dinner with Martin Agronsky who had been behind the lines in Northern Ireland for a 3-week period. He came out in despair. He said: That crowd is never going to get together. Fortunately, under the leadership of President Clinton and Senator Mitchell, there was a break last Friday, and, finally, the IRA says they are going to disarm, and it looks like it might work. For 30 years, they have had the infrastructure--the roads, the bridges, the hospitals, the universities. I have been to Northern Ireland. Some sections of Belfast have better housing than my hometown. With all that infrastructure, the British troops are still deployed years and years later. Is that the policy of the United States of America with our GIs? That is why we rise this afternoon and are ready, willing, and able to draw some lines that are understandable that will develop into a firm policy. If the U.N. wants to get in there, fine, but if they are not going to support it, then we have a problem. I will never forget the story about Vaclav Havel saying he hoped Secretary Albright could come back to the Czech Republic, her native land, and succeed him as President. He said the one difficulty was that 75 percent of the people of the Czech Republic opposed ``Madeleine's war.'' Take a rollcall. Go up to the U.N. See how enthused they are about the nonpolicy. Quit giving this patina of deliberation and positivity by doing nothing and keeping the troops out there and praying like we all do that no one gets assaulted or loses a life at Bonsteel. We have an impossible situation. It is not going to get better in the foreseeable future. We ought to bring it to a head and certainly let the next President, whomever that is, have a 6-month period to review the mistake we made and say: Wait a minute, it was not a mistake. I do not mind if they are right and I am wrong. I can tell my colleagues right now though, unfortunately, I think I gave the right vote when I opposed the Biden amendment. I appreciate the leadership and the conscientious approach the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has given this responsibility. We are not trying to embarrass the President. We are not trying to take a political position. On the contrary, I have my GIs out there. I saw what happened in Vietnam, and I saw what happened in Somalia. If it had not been for the Byrd amendment, we could possibly still be there. This is a similar call to arms politically for us to set the policy and do so in a judicious way. We all know they want to try to subvert it; they do not want to talk about it. With this crowd in Washington, you have to be on message: Let's not talk about it because it might get on to the weekend shows, and if it gets on to the weekend shows, it might send the wrong message to Milosevic. Bah humbug to Milosevic. I am trying to send a message to those fellows at Bonsteel. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. It has 84.2 percent on footwear. So 85 percent of the shoes on the floor here in the Senate Chamber are imported. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in this particular list from the International Trades Commission.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is one little reading of the U.S. deficits in advanced technology because you know we have gone, they say, from manufacturing to high tech. They told England at the end of World War II: Don't worry. Instead, of a nation of brawn, you are going to be a nation of brains. Instead of producing products, you will provide services. Service economy, service economy is the chant. And then, instead of creating wealth, you are going to handle it and be a financial center. England has gone into an economic hand basket. They have a bunch of just scandal sheets--the newspapers and Parliamentarians--debating and shouting at each other. Downtown London is an amusement park. Are we going that way, too? They have gone out of business there. Here are some deficits in advanced technology products. Parts of the advanced machinery incorporated, $18.23 billion; hard disc drive units, $9.72 billion; parts of turbojet or turbo propeller engines, $4.28 billion, Turbojet aircraft engines, $3.74 billion deficit, balance of trade; parts for printers, $3.52 billion; new turbo fan planes, non- military, $3.23 billion; cellular radio telephones, $3 billion; video cassette and cartridge recorders, $3.32 billion, deficit; display units, $1.64 billion; optical disc players, $1.64 billion; camcorders, $1.09 billion; digital still-image video cameras, $1.07 billion. Mr. President, rather than taking further time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point the U.S. Trade in Advanced Technology Products showing the exports and imports and the balance thereof.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we need to remember we are not only going to lose 74,700 apparel jobs in New York but in apparel manufacturing throughout the United States. I want to go to the morning paper because they had a big conclave over at the White House. It says, ``Political Heavyweights Pull for Agreement with China.'' They have Vice President Gore and former President Carter. But they also have the former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. Quoting from this morning's Los Angeles Times: Clinton asked rhetorically, ``Why are we having this debate?'' His answer: Because people are anxiety ridden about the forces of globalization, or they are frustrated over the human rights record of China, or they don't like all the procedures of the WTO. President Clinton's answer to ``Why are we having this debate?''--``Because people are anxiety ridden about the forces of globalization.'' The legacy of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt--I will have to talk about a proud Democrat. I hope the distinguished Ranking Member doesn't mind me doing that. I think in time I might get him to join. I watched his votes, and he is very sensitive to the needs of little people. The great legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is: ``All we have to fear is fear itself.'' I can hear him now. We had a little headset in 1933. That is before daddy went broke. He had a flourishing business. Amongst other things, he printed and delivered paper bags. But he printed the names of the German grocery stores all around Charleston: Hoffmeyer, Meyers, Hochwanger, Heiselmeier, Fahler, Reumeyers--I can see them all now. They called my father and said: Bubba, no use sending those bags to people who are not paying the grocery bill, and we can't pay you for the bags. He said: Well, got your name on them. I can't use them otherwise. Just do what you can. I am sending them around. But we had at that time in 1933 a headset. I can hear President Roosevelt. I had the pleasure of seeing him as a youngster in 1936 when he came through Charleston and boarded the ship. He came by train from Washington to Charleston, boarded the cruiser, and went on down to Buenos Aires, Argentina. I was looking up at President Roosevelt. Later, of course, when I was a senior cadet at the Citadel, ready to go off into the invasion of North Africa, I could hear him in 1941 about the ``four freedoms.'' He said the four freedoms are the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom from want, and the freedom, Mr. President, from fear. That was the legacy. That was the legacy of the greatest President of our time. Now what is our legacy? I can tell you. You do not have to get politician Hollings or get the business leadership. What is the business leadership? ``Backlash: Behind the Anxiety Over Globalization.'' The legacy of President Clinton is a legacy of fear. This crowd had better wake up and understand it because we are going out of business. The President just last week was down in Charlotte talking about the digital divide, the digital divide, middle America. How in the world can they buy a computer? Not the poor; middle America can't afford that. They are trying to hold onto a job. They are trying to pay for the house upkeep. They are trying to buy the clothes. And they are doing pretty good. But they look at those 37,000 from South Carolina who are gone, gone. Washington is telling all of middle America that they never had it so good. We got a boom. Let's get the boom going. They see these jobs going, and they see all of our good friends, the immigrants, with fine business earnings coming in and taking a lot of the jobs. They see plant closings in Columbia. That is the way it is factored in. I always loved to go to Ireland. But in Ireland, they have a booming business taking care of all the banking and insurance accounts and everything else. What do we do? We got rid of what Henry Ford created, and that is the middle class. Ford said, in the early days, I want to make sure that the individual producing this automobile is making enough money to buy it. That, along with the labor movement in America, got health care, retirement benefits, and everything elsewhere which they could pay for--not only pay for their home but send their kid to college, maybe get a little home at the beach or in the mountains, buy a boat to put out in the lake and go fishing, something for retirement. They talk about Social Security. I see that fellow, Morris, is telling Bush: Don't try to talk about. Don't touch Social Security. Why? Because it is supersensitive because of fear--the legacy of the Clinton administration. He has no idea about the digital divide and no idea about trade. That boy from Arkansas has gone up there and seen the bright lights in New York. He has left us. I can tell you right now, he is not looking out for middle America. ``The best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class,'' said Aristotle in 315 B.C. It is to the middle class we must look for the safety of England, says Thackeray. In England, what we call the middle class is in America virtually the Nation. In the 1880s, Matthew Arnold: ``The upper class is our nation's past, the middle class is its future.'' I don't know about a future. That is what is worrying the Senator from South Carolina--not the textile jobs. They are gone. They are leaving them fast, including one closed just last week. The best of operators are closing. I can see it, and I know what is going to happen to the textile manufacturer. It will be totally gone. As soon as they can afford the machinery in Mexico and the Caribbean, they will print the cloth and these fellows will take their money and run. That is what you have in ATMI. That is why I warn everyone, we are not just getting rid of the textile jobs. I said at the beginning we learned in the artillery, no matter how well the aim, if the recoil is going to kill the gun crew, don't fire. You got a good aim, no question. Let's do something for the Caribbean. Let's do something for Africa. But on this score, where two- thirds of the clothing is already imported, let's not kill off the apparel industry. There are 74,700 jobs in New York, 18,500 in South Carolina, 146,900 in California. We will have a candidate saying: Boom, boom, boom, wonderful economy. This is what he ought to be talking about. We have to rebuild the economic strength of this Nation. That is not going to happen at the present rate. This conference report ought to be sent back to the conferees and we ought to put in a competitive trade policy. I had a bill with the Finance Committee 15 years ago. I have talked to the distinguished chairman not only about a value-added tax to pay the bill but I have talked about a correlation and coordination. There are 28 Departments and Agencies in trade. When we think that Commerce has it, they say no; in Agriculture, that is a farm product, and they say, no, the final say is over at Treasury Department. Why? Because 40.3 percent is foreign owned, foreign holdings, a percent of total of the privately-held public debt. Talk about paying down the public debt; foreign holdings as a percent is already up to 40.3 percent. When we are ready to enforce a dumping provision against Japan, they say: We are not going to buy your T-bills. And Treasury calls up and says that hearing was good. The tail is wagging the dog and corporations. Senator Moynihan, as a freshman at City College of New York, said that they taught him corporations run America. They have preempted trade policy. We representatives, Senators and Congressmen, don't have any say. It is fixed with the White House. The corporations come around and fix the vote. By the time they call, nobody is on the floor and they couldn't care less. Let them puff and blow, the middle class be gone, the textile industry be gone, they are all Republican anyway. Now the apparel workers, the owners--the apparel workers are Democrat, anyway, so they would just as soon get rid of them. We will lose 26,000 apparel workers in Alabama, 19,700 in Florida, 26,100 in Georgia, 18,900 in Kentucky, 2,600 in Maine, 10,400 in Massachusetts, Mississippi loses 16,600, New York loses 74,700, North Carolina loses 38,300. Imagine the President in Charlotte, NC, last week talking about the digital divide, and middle America is about to lose another 38,000 jobs in and about Charlotte--can't even buy a computer, and he doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand his legacy of fear. Roosevelt has freedom from fear as his legacy. What we have is a legacy of fear. It not that we are not sophisticated and understand globalization. We understand making a living and paying our bills and working hard to do it. Even though you work hard, they tell you: Globalization. Be gone. You, the most productive textile worker in the world, be gone, because you don't understand globalization, competition, competition, productivity. The most productive industrial worker in the world is in the United States. Right now, the record shows Japan to be No. 8; Netherlands is No. 2; Germany is No. 3. The Japanese pay way more in wages. It isn't low wages. They have a specific policy. That Lexus automobile you buy for $30,000 in Washington, DC, is sold for $40,000 in downtown Tokyo. They make up the $10,000 on their own domestic economy and got it through the financing, and the people accept that. They are taking over more and more and more. The distinguished Senator is a foreign policy and an expert, and he knows better than any that money talks. Forget about the Sixth Fleet, forget about the hydrogen bomb. Money talks now. We have been on a binge in the 1990s, but financially we are going out of business. The market is showing it right this afternoon while I am talking. You can talk to anybody in the trucking business. It is closing in, and people are beginning to hunker down. When I started my remarks, I related when the distinguished Senator was in the Kennedy administration, we put in a 7-point textile program because 10 percent of America's consumption of textiles and clothing was going to be represented in imports. Now we have two-thirds. We are ready to get rid of the other third overnight, and we think we are proud of it; we are doing a good job. It is a well considered thing with respect to Africa, the Caribbean, to help them find business. We believe in it. However, we have given at the store. Now is the time to save the home. Now is the time to save middle America. Now is the time to eliminate the fear by instituting a competitive trade policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as one would say on the bill affecting textiles, in the famous words of President Reagan, ``Here we go again.'' This is about more than textiles and textile jobs. It involves the economic strength of the Nation. It involves its political strength. The middle class is disappearing fast. We talk about the digital divide. I want to comment on the disappearance of the middle class itself. Let me go right to textiles. I was a witness some 40 years ago relative to the textile industry. In that particular time period, 10 percent of America's consumption in textiles was going to be represented in imports. That was a threat not only to industry itself but to the Nation. Specifically, I testified before the International Trade Commission. At the time, President Eisenhower was in office. We went by to see General Persons, his Chief of Staff. He said: Don't worry, you will win the case. But in June we got an adverse decision. At that time, with that adverse decision, I went to our friend, Senator John F. Kennedy, a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, and discussed at length the particular problem. We agreed on an exchange of letters, so to speak, with me outlining the problem, and in turn Senator Kennedy outlining what he thought would be a solution. We all know then, that Kennedy was elected President. Early in 1961, we had a conference at the White House. He said: In line with what I outlined to you in the campaign, I want it to come under the national security provisions of our trade laws. So, hark, ye, all who talk and lament that we haven't passed a trade bill in 6 years. It is a good thing we did not pass one, because what we really need to do is get competitive and stop treating foreign trade as foreign aid. This is not a Finance Committee. This is a Foreign Relations Committee. It is a giving away the manufacturing backbone of the United States of America. Under that national security provision to protect the textile and apparel industry, you had to have a hearing and a determination that the particular commodity, or article, or product was important to our national security. I will never forget it. We set up the hearing with Secretary Ball--he was the undersecretary for Dean Rusk at State--Secretary Goldberg of Labor, Secretary Freeman of Agriculture, Secretary Hodges of Commerce. A few people remember that Senator Kennedy had a bipartisan Cabinet with a Republican Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Dillon, and a Republican Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNamara. We had those five. We brought the witnesses. They made the finding that, next to steel, textiles were second most important to our national security. I remember the particular ``wag'' at that time, that, look, you couldn't send them to war in a Japanese uniform. So we had to be able to make the clothing and the uniforms. As a result, President Kennedy on May 13, 1961, promulgated his Seven-Point Program relative to the importation of textiles. Mind you me: We feared at the time that 10 percent of America's consumption in textile products was being imported or just about to be imported. As I look at the Chamber now, two-thirds of the clothing I am looking at is imported--not 10 percent. With this particular conference report, there isn't any question that certain parts of the textile industry will immediately disappear, and the rest of it in a 4- or 5-year period will be on the ropes. You say: Why, oh, why, Senator from South Carolina, are you objecting? Because the American Textile Manufacturers Institute is in favor of the conference report That selfish crowd. I call them selfish in a studied way. I authored five textile bills that have gotten through this Senate. I had four of those textile bills go through the House and the Senate, and four of them were vetoed. I know from whence this particular Senator got the votes for these bills. Yes. It was the apparel group in America, the ones who make the clothing. The little ditty is: We produce for America. We have the fine middle- class jobs, and we are working around the clock. And, yes, we are the most productive textile workers in the world. The industry itself has invested some $2 million a year over the past 15 years, keeping up with modernization, with the best of machinery, the best of approaches in employment. I have made many a sneak through and they don't want to let a Democrat in the plant. But I would sneak in on one floor and duck down into the plant on the bottom floor. It is totally automated in the weave room with the looms, spinning away. They used to have 115 employees, and now have only 15. They have cut back on the employees and put in the most modern machinery. The worker, the machinery, and the industry is the most productive. It is not a question of productivity. We don't have to get globalization and competition so we can make them productive. The politicians run around on the floor of the Senate and some of them have never worked for a living. They don't know what productivity is. We have quite an opposition. Let me say a word about that. When we first started out, we only had, say, the Japanese Government, with their representatives coming in to talk. But soon after, Chase Manhattan and Citicorp made a majority of their money outside of the United States. So, in addition to Koreans and Japanese, now we have the international banks. Along with the international banks came the international groups funding campus studies with contributions and they began to get the expert studies off the campuses with the consultants. So we had the banks, the universities, the consultants, and the foreign operation. Then, of course, we had the retailers. They wanted to sell a cheap product. So we had the National Retail Federation. They are the biggest supporters of the print media in America, the newspapers. They make their money off of retail advertising. So we have these editorialists, who never bit into customs or the trade practices, writing about free trade, free trade, free trade. So we have the retailers. Then go to the book ``Agents of Affluence,'' published about 10 years ago. At that time, Japan was paying $113 million for over 100 representatives in Washington, DC, to look out for their industry, their game of market share. This bill is all backed up. The white tent is out. We saw it in NAFTA. Only they are afraid to bring the tent down. They are meeting in the White House itself. They are all getting together and running around with the former Presidents, the former Secretaries of State. The former chairman of the Finance Committee, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Moynihan of New York said: When a freshman at City College of New York, I heard that corporations ran America. He was telling corporate America to get out and get the vote. We had that crowd and we have my ATMI, which is my point. They don't know from ``sic 'em'' about competition. They know extremely well how we got the votes from Evelyn Dubrow and the apparel workers of America. That's how we passed those bills. The cloth manufacturers have divorced themselves from the apparel manufacturers and said: Fend for yourself. We've got a better offer and we are going to start free trade. It doesn't make any difference so long as we can get fabric forward. If we can get the cloth, we can sell it to them in Africa, in the Caribbean or in Mexico. We will let any trade bill go so long as we can sell. But fend for yourself. You are out of business. Let me tell you how many jobs we have now that are bound to be gone because the States will be inundated. Alabama has presently 26,500 apparel jobs. Goodbye, Alabama. I want to see those Senators come here now. California, 146,900 textile, middle-class American jobs, earning $8 and sometimes $10 or more an hour. Middle class--I want to emphasize that. Henry Ford said he wanted to make sure the person manufacturing his product was capable of buying it. So he put in the wage scale which allowed that and he started developing a strong middle class. Florida, let's see the Florida Senators come here and say: Free trade, free trade. Forget about the 19,700 apparel jobs. They are gone. Why? Because of us, because of us as Senators and Members of Congress, setting the standard of living for industrial America. We say before you can open up that ABC Manufacturing Company, that what you need do, first, is have a minimum wage, then Social Security, then Medicare, then Medicaid, then plant closing notice, then parental leave, then clean air, then clean water, then safe working machinery, then a safe working place--or we sent OSHA after you. Republicans and Democrats all agree, before you open the front door, you better have all of that in the plant or you are in violation of Federal law. You are out of step with the standard of American living. But if you can take off and get your T-shirts made in Bangladesh, you have none of those requirements, and pay one cent an hour. In Burma, it is 4 cents an hour. In China, it is 23 cents an hour. In the country of Colombia, it is 70 to 80 cents an hour. In the Dominican Republic, it is 60 cents an hour. In El Salvador, it is 59 cents an hour. In Guatemala, it is 37 to 50 cents an hour. In Haiti, it is 30 cents an hour. In Honduras, 43 cents an hour. In India, 20 to 30 cents an hour. In Indonesia, 10 cents an hour. Malaysia, $1 an hour. Mexico, 50 to 54 cents an hour. Nicaragua, 23 cents an hour. Pakistan, 20 to 26 cents an hour. Peru, 90 cents an hour. The Philippines, 58 to 76 cents an hour. Romania, 24 cents an hour. Sri Lanka, 40 cents an hour. Thailand, 78 cents an hour. As you well know, 30 percent in manufacturing is your labor cost, and you can save as much as 20 percent by transferring your production offshore to a low-wage country. That is, maintain your executive office, maintain your sales force, but with a company of $500 million in sales, transfer the production to Mexico or a low-wage country offshore and you can make $100 million before taxes. Or you can continue to work your own people and go broke. That is the trade policy of this wonderful Finance Committee that runs all over the floor, bleating and wailing and wondering: Oh, what are we doing for Africa? Isn't this a grand thing we have for the Caribbean and everything else, with no regard to the reality. They taught us early on, at the beginning of the war in artillery, no matter how well the gun is aimed, if the recoil is going to kill the guncrew, you do not fire. The aim is good. I would like to put in a Marshall Plan for Mexico. It is a fine business. Let's help the Caribbean, let's help Africa, let's help anybody. There is hunger in the world so let's find it and help with it. But this crowd, wow, they are not going to pay for anything-- nothing. They are not going to have any regard from whence they came and the strength of America itself. Two-thirds of the garments already coming in are imported. In Georgia, there are 26,100 apparel workers; Kentucky, 18,900; Maine, 2,600; Massachusetts, 10,400; Mississippi--the distinguished majority leader said it is a wonderful thing. I want him to go back and tell these 16,600 apparel workers it is the last call for breakfast. In my beginning days, they used to have that early morning program, the ``Breakfast Club,'' in Chicago, the Stevens Hotel, with Don McNeil. They would get to the very end and they would say: ``It is the last call for breakfast.'' I can hear the music now. This is the last call for Texas, certainly the last call for the apparel workers, because they are gone. Goodbye Mississippi, 16,600 will be applying for unemployment compensation or going--where? I will tell you where they are going. I think we had a list from the Department of Commerce of these great jobs. I will tell you where they are. You say: Wait a minute, Senator. How about that employment rate? We have such low unemployment. Here is where they are going: cashiers, janitors, cleaners, retail salespeople, waiters and waitresses, registered nurses, systems analysts, home health aides, security guards, nursing aides, anything they can get that they can possibly do--for less pay, obviously. In fact, the retail workers, they found out you can hire them as independent contractors and you don't even have to pay for their health care. They have every gimmick in the book to squeeze that middle class here in the United States and bring them down to nothing. So it goes, for New York, the Senators from New York, I want to inform them, advisedly, there are 74,700. There is no one I respect more, of course, than the senior Senator from New York and the senior House Member, my friend, Charlie Rangel. But if I had Charlie here I would say: Charlie, 74,700: Going, going--gone. This vote is fixed. That is why we have this exercise here. They talk about the most deliberative body. They do not call a thing until it is greased; the jury is fixed. Then, after you have gotten the vote of the jury, then you let them talk because it is all over. North Carolina, 38,300; Pennsylvania, 34,900; South Carolina, 18,500; Tennessee, 23,500; Virginia, 12,900--those are the apparel jobs that are going, going, gone once we get this conference report voted on by tomorrow, I take it. It will go to the President. They will all stand around with big smiles in the Oval Office: Look what we have done. We understand humankind. We want to help sub-Sahara. We want to help the Caribbean. Let me get right to the point with respect to the apparel versus the cloth manufacturers. As you well know, the manufacture of the fabric itself is capital intensive, so that is why they have not caught up with them yet. But now they are beginning to build those facilities down in Mexico. So, as I said a minute ago, it will be about 5 years and then they will have their own fabric manufacturers down there shipping into the American market. Otherwise, all that fine Japanese machinery that we have in American plants, all of a sudden the price is going to go up. They know how to compete. Our trade policy is anything but reciprocal. Cordell Hull said ``reciprocal free trade.'' My friend, the distinguished Senator from New York, gets with Smoot-Hawley and Cordell Hull and how we started the reciprocal trade agreements in the 1930s, and we have been for freedom. Not so at all. No. The very Congress that passed the reciprocal free trade, historically they put in subsidies for agriculture in Montana-- yes. Subsidies for agriculture in Montana, and protective quotas. Do not give me free trade for agriculture, you will not get my vote. No, sir, I am not for free trade for agriculture because our protections, our subsidies have made America's agriculture the showcase of the world. We feed ourselves and 15 other countries. But wait until the China bill. I can't wait for that one to come. They are trying to sell the farmers a bill of goods. There are 3,338,000--go look at the record at the Department of Agriculture. There are 3,338,000 farmers in America. In China, they have 700 to 800 million farmers. They talk about the percentage of arable land. Do not be getting along with that percentage of arable land and everything else. We already have a deficit in the balance of trade in cotton with China. In wheat and cereals and corn and other feedgrains, we had a plus balance 4 years ago, with the country of China, of 440 million. It is down last year to 39 million. You watch them, in 2 years they will have a plus balance. They will be shipping us wheat. But you are going to hear these farmers out on the floor bleating--whoa, we have China free trade for America's agriculture. So with the wrong facts they have to go to the Department of Agriculture and go to the People's Republic of China and see exactly what they are doing. Actually, they have a glut in the People's Republic of China in agriculture. They do not have the transportation. They do not have the distribution. They do have hunger. But mind you me, when they solve that transportation and distribution problem, then they will be feeding the world like we have been bragging. And the farmers will be coming up here again. Like that Freedom to Farm, we gave them that sort of freedom to farm. They came up and got, I think it was, $7 or $8 billion last year. They are looking for another $6 billion here. You know that is the crowd that looks to me, the textile Senator, saying: Free trade, free trade, free trade, the whole time they are drooling at those subsidies, those protective quotas, you know; looking at me like something is wrong, that I do not understand how to be nice in this world globalization. So here we go. Since NAFTA alone, we have lost, in the United States, 440,000 textile and apparel jobs--440,000. I know in South Carolina we have lost 37,000 textile and apparel jobs since NAFTA. This is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Remember, we were going to create 200,000 jobs with NAFTA. Oh, we were going to do everything. We were going to solve the drug problem. We were going to solve the immigration problem. We were going to create jobs. And we have gone from a $5 billion-plus balance of trade with Mexico to $23 billion minus, a deficit in the balance of trade. The average Mexican worker has less take-home pay today than prior to NAFTA. It has not helped anybody, but they are talking now about NAFTA for Africa and NAFTA for the Caribbean. I could get into that at length with respect to the disparity in tariffs, with respect to our own quotas. They are being phased out by 2004. Let me go to the main thrust of my point this afternoon, and that is the importance of these middle-class jobs to the economy. I will never forget a seminar in Chicago in the early eighties with Akio Morita, the chairman of the board of Sony. He was lecturing about Third World countries, emerging countries. He said the Third World countries had to develop a strong manufacturing sector in order to become a nation state. Then, pointing to me, he said: And, by the way, Senator, the world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power. Was Morita making some original observation? Not at all. Alexander Hamilton made the same observation to the British in the early days of 1789. The British corresponded with the fledgling Colonies and said: Now that you won your freedom, you trade with us what you produce best, and we will trade back what we produce best--David Ricardo, the Doctrine of Comparative Advantage. Mr. Alexander Hamilton wrote a booklet. It is at the Library of Congress, if someone on the Finance Committee wants to read it. In a word, Hamilton told the British: Bug off; we are not going to remain your colony; we are not going to export to you our agriculture, our foodstuffs, our cotton, grain, indigo, our timber and iron ore and import from the mother country the finished product; we are going to develop our own manufacture. The second bill that ever passed with respect to the National Congress, in which I am privileged to serve, the second bill--the first bill was the Seal of the United States--the second bill, on July 4, 1789, was a tariff bill of 50 percent on 60 different articles. We started this economic giant, the United States of America, with protectionism. Abraham Lincoln followed it in the building of the transcontinental railroad. They said: Mr. President, we can get the steel from England. He said: Not at all. We will build our own steel plants, and when we are through, we will not only have the railroad, we will have the steel capacity. Roosevelt, in the darkest days of the Depression, passed import quotas on the subsidies for America's agriculture. Dwight Eisenhower in 1955 put quotas on oil. We have practiced, more or less, a protected trade policy--we have many tariffs on many things still--while we have bleated: Free trade, free trade, free trade, and joined the chorus: I like fair trade; I like a level playing field. Do not give me a level playing field. I want to trade to my advantage and my interests. Business is business, and the game is market share. The Japanese have set the tone, the practice, and the policy in the Pacific rim, and the Europeans are following. Let's talk China. There is not a deficit in the balance of European countries. The European countries have a plus balance of trade with China. What do we have with this ``free trade, free trade''? We have $68 billion deficit and growing. That is not the most recent figure, but $68 billion is the most authoritative figure I can give right now, and it is getting worse every day. They know how to trade and how to administer. We actually export about the same to Belgium and Singapore than we do to the 1,300,000,000 Chinese in the People's Republic of China. Talk about exports, exports, exports, and the wonderful agreements-- we will have plenty of time to get into those agreements. They want to continue that so we will not have even a touch of sobriety. Give us one chance at bat to sober America up because America is becoming very anxious and very concerned. The Nation's strength of security is like a three-legged stool: We have the one leg, the values of the Nation, and that is unquestioned. The people the world around admire the United States of America. We have stood for years on end for individual rights, human rights, and democracy. I can talk on that because I am so proud of this country. The second leg is the military, which is also unquestioned. The third leg is the economic leg that has been fractured in the last 50 years and needs refurbishing, strengthening, and rebuilding. I say fractured, I emphasize intentionally fractured. I heard the distinguished Senator from Iowa say, since 1945, look at the commerce, the commerce, the commerce. We were just like England in 1789. We had the only industry, the only production. In 1945, Europe was devastated and the Pacific rim was devastated. We were looking for customers. We were looking for buyers. We had production. Yes, we said free trade, free trade. Concurrent with that, we instituted the Marshall Plan and sent the money. We instituted along with that plan the machinery and the expertise. We sent it overseas in the contest between capitalism and communism, and it has worked. After 50 years, we can stand proudly and say it has worked. Capitalism has defeated communism. We are all proud of that and the sacrifice that went along with it, because in those days of 1945 we were willing to sacrifice. Today, we are not willing to sacrifice to save America itself--the middle class and the economic strength of our society. What happens is we have been engaged in this for some time and, as a result, we have treated foreign trade as foreign aid. I think of Akio Morita and losing manufacturing capacity. In 1945, we had 41 percent of the workers in the United States engaged in manufacturing. In the year 2000, we are down to 14 percent. In the nineties, in the United States, we have lost some 779,000 manufacturing jobs and in South Carolina, my State alone, some 40,500. The industrial strength is fast diminishing. I look at the different things about textiles, but I look also at the ratios of imports to consumption and what we are going to manufacture for ourselves. Let's see. As a young Governor, they looked at me at that hearing I told you about, at the very beginning, and said: Governor, what do you expect them to make? Let them make the shoes. Let them make the clothing. And we will make the airplanes and the computers. My problem today is, they are making the shoes, they are making the clothing, and they are making the airplanes and the computers. And so it is. Certain industrial thermal-processing equipment, 48.9 percent--almost half of what we consume is imported--67 percent of textile machinery and parts used in the United States we have to get from abroad; 55.3 percent of the machine tools for metal forming and parts; 51.9 percent of semiconductor manufacturing equipment and robotics--we import it. I remember one good thing President Reagan did was to put in SEMATECH. He saved Intel microprocessing. Everybody is running around here falling over each other after that Silicon Valley money: high tech, high tech. We have somebody here from high tech. Bill Gates walks around convicted of violating the Sherman antitrust law but you would think he is a visiting potentate. All the little staffers and Senators streaming behind him as he goes through the Halls. And then I go to another policy meeting, and they announce we have another microprocessing, high tech, Silicon Valley. Let's get right to the point. Microsoft has 20,000 employees in Seattle and Boeing of Seattle has approximately 75,000. They are in the manufacturing. General Motors has 250,000. Mind you me, they are not satisfied in high tech. They want to do away with the income tax, the capital gains tax, the estate tax. They want to do away with 200 years of State tort law--Y2K. They want to do away with the immigration laws because--why?--they can import the Indians and the Filipinos in here next to nothing. Generally speaking, America Online has a service center now in the Philippines. Call them and ask them. My light bill in South Carolina is run through India. But high tech, high tech--they are all in a heat to see. Who is fooling whom. They are after the money. High tech is after the exemptions. They do not want to pay their wage. So there you go. Right to the point, why do you think that the march in Seattle--I am not talking about the crazies who came up there from Eugene, OR, and broke up the town; I am talking about the march in Seattle in December; the AFL-CIO, the responsible individuals--that march was led by Boeing machinists. Why? Read Bill Greider's book ``One World, Ready or Not'' and you will see that much of that Boeing 777, before it can be sold in downtown Shanghai, has to be made in downtown Shanghai. So they are taking the airplane jobs there. Or pick up the morning paper and you will see the automobile jobs in China that are being taken from us. All the time I have to hear that nauseating chant: free trade, free trade. Yes, I am for free trade. All the interviewers. GE owns NBC. The president of GE, Jack Welch, told everybody to go down to Mexico: All you suppliers, you aren't going to be a GE supplier because I can get it cheaper. I will show you that article in ``Business Week.'' Let's go right down to boilers and turbines; 44.4 percent of what we consume has to be imported; electrical transformers, 43.2 percent; aircraft engines and gas turbines, 70.3 percent; motorcycles, 48.5 percent; aircraft, 45.7 percent--we used to have 100 percent of that business--office machines, 47.2 percent; microphones, loud speakers, audio amplifiers, and combinations thereof, 77.9 percent; tape recorders, tape players, video cassette recorders, turntables, compact disc players, 100 percent; radio transmission and reception, 57.9 percent of what we consume--used to be made by middle-class America; no longer--television apparatus, including cameras, camcorders, and cable apparatus, 68.5 percent. I remember when Zenith had their case, and their competitors had been found in violation for dumping. And the International Trade Commission in a unique decision held for Zenith--because they usually cancel out the trade administration--but the trade commission exacted the penalty. And the last stop, of course, was in the White House, in the Oval Office, where the President had the authority to cancel it out. The Cabinet all around the table, they all voted to enforce the decision of the International Trade Commission. And in walked President Reagan. He said: I just talked to Nakosone and we are not going to do that. You see, yes, it has been wonderful. It has been fine. It has worked. We have peace in the world--whatever--and we have a booming economy. But in a booming economy, you have to look at the consummate, the concurrent effect here. Electrical capacitors and resistors, 69.5 percent; automatic data processing machines, 51.6 percent. I read this because colleagues in the Senate say: There he goes again on textiles. I have given up on textiles. I resign. I quit. When the ATMI tackles me from behind, and they leave out the people who have been getting the votes--the polls all taken--poor old Jay Mazur, poor Evy Dubrow, and the rest of them--and unit, and the others who have been working together--Seth Bodner, the knitwear folks, the apparel folks--I just have to say it is gone. This bill is passed. But while it passes, we have to have a stop, look, and listen at the crossing and realize that 62.2 percent of clocks and timing devices that we use in America are now imported; watches, 100 percent-- apparently we do not manufacture them anymore--drawing and mathematical calculating and measuring instruments, 71.4 percent; luggage, handbags, and flat goods, 79.7 percent; musical instruments and accessories, 57.2 percent; umbrellas, whips, riding crops, and canes, 81.1 percent; silverware, 59.9 percent. We can go to precious jewelry, which is 55.8 percent imported. They have different clothing and all--sweaters, 76.4 percent; robes, nightwear, and underwear, 68.8 percent--right on down the list. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this compilation of the import penetration of these articles.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are worried. We have anxiety. There is fear in the land, Mr. President. The foreign holdings as a percent of the total publicly held debt--as we pay down the public debt, the foreign holdings are still at 40.3 percent, according to the Treasury Department. When you get these deficits, billions and billions--$347 billion in the balance of trade--so many dollars out in foreign holdings, the dollar falls, the interest rates go up, the stock market goes down, and recession sets in. Who is talking about it? Everybody but us in public service. We are running around, ``I've got class size,'' ``I've got a better class size.'' ``No, I've got charter schools.'' ``No, I got a better plan here on health care.'' ``No, your plan is no good.'' They are not talking about paying the bill so that we can keep the country and the economy booming. They are talking about little peripheral things over here--campaign finance and otherwise--not paying the bill and reestablishing confidence in America. The number of workers, as I have said at the very beginning, quoting Morita, is down to 14 percent in manufacturing. I will read an excerpt from Mr. Eamon Fingleton, Mr. President, entitled ``The Unmaking of Americans.'' I want everyone to listen because we have books by professors at Harvard and out at Berkeley in California and Stephen Cohen and John Zysman who have written ``Manufacturing Matters.'' They are trying to wake up a dormant Finance Committee that seems not to understand anything about trade, who really think this is a good bill. I am embarrassed for them because this is not going to just put out some 74,700 apparel workers up in New York, but at least 18,500 that I have in South Carolina and, ultimately the textile industry--as soon as they can afford the machinery and get it in down in Mexico and these other places. I will never forget 10 years ago when we debated textiles. Macao had millions and millions of dozens of shirts and didn't have a shirt factory. China was transhipping them through Macao. So now China takes this sub-Sahara bill that will make a few people rich, but not the African countries or the African people, just as those shirts didn't make Macao any richer. China will transship right on through sub-Sahara Africa and, in the process, get rid of the American apparel workers and, before long, the textile workers. Let's quote Mr. Fingleton here as to the importance of manufacturing and you will get a better grasp of this: In recent decades, it has become increasingly fashionable for American opinion leaders to belittle the economic importance of manufacturing. If we are to believe such prophets of the New Economy as commentator Michael Rothschild and Megatrends author, John Naisbitt, manufacturing is now a distinctly second-rate activity that should take a backseat to post-industrial businesses like software writing and moviemaking. Their opinions are increasingly endorsed by pundits in everything from the Wall Street Journal to Wired. It is time this view was challenged. The truth is, it is a highly dangerous myth that is rapidly weakening the United States' ability to lead the world economy. Not only do those who advocate post-industrialism--let's call them post- industrialists--overestimate the prospects for information- based products and services, they greatly underestimate the prospects for manufacturing. When the post-industrialists talk about manufacturing, it is clear they are referring mainly to such unsophisticated activities as the snap-together assembly work carried out in the television-set factories of the developing world. By implicitly defining manufacturing in such disparaging terms, they set up a straw man--for there is no question that, in an increasingly integrated world economy, most types of assembly work are so labor intensive that they can no longer be conducted profitably in high-wage nations like the United States. Overlooked by the post-industrialists, however, is the fact that assembly is only the final stage in the production of modern consumer goods. Earlier stages are typically much more sophisticated--the making of advanced components such as laser diodes, liquid crystal displays, lithium-ion batteries and flash memories, for example. Then there is the production of the high-tech materials that go into such components. Semiconductor-grade silicon manufacturing, for instance, is concentrated mainly in such high-wage nations as Japan and Germany. We have a $74 billion deficit in the balance of trade with Japan, Mr. President. I think it is $28 billion deficit with Germany. And still more sophisticated than the fabrication of such components and materials is the manufacture of the production machinery used in the process. Perhaps the iconic example of such machinery is the stepper--the highly precise lithographic device that prints circuit lines on silicon chips. Manufacturing components, materials and production machinery is generally both know-how-intensive and capital intensive. As such it can be conducted effectively only in the world's richest and most advanced economies--and workers engaged in such work are thereby shielded from low-wage competition from developing nations. The United States once dominated this type of production, but these days, as is abundantly clear from the nation's mounting trade deficits with Japan and Germany, it is at best an also ran. In steppers, for instance, GCA, the once world-beating American player, closed its doors in 1993, leaving the field almost entirely to Japan's Nikon and Canon and Europe's ASM. In high-tech materials, the United States is now similarly dependent on imports. And in crucial new components such as laser diodes and liquid crystal displays, the country was never a contender in the first place. I remember the gulf war and the flat-panel displays we got from Japan for our defense work. It is really discouraging to this particular Senator when we mark up the defense appropriations bill. We have in there a Buy-America provision trying to maintain steel ball bearings for Ohio and South Carolina because Timken and others produce them. They do an outstanding job. But we have those who put in an amendment to strike that out--that it is un-American and all. I don't know where they got this idea about what America is--that we are supposed to meet a referee in bankruptcy, dissolve the assets, and send it around to the Caribbean, to sub-Sahara, and everything else on the premise that it is good policy for us to sometime come to the help of these particular countries. It would be good if it were not destroying us in the making. Manufacturing's most obvious advantage is that it creates an excellent range of jobs. Whereas post-industrial businesses like software and financial services tend to recruit mainly from the cream of the intellectual crop, manufacturing harnesses the skills of everyone from ordinary factory hands to the most brilliant scientists and the most capable managers. In fact, as the late Bennett Harrison of New York's New School (a longtime TR columnist) pointed out in his book Lean and Mean in 1997, unskilled workers ``barely off the farm'' can readily be trained to operate computer- controlled presses and similarly sophisticated production machinery. In Harrison's terms, today's high-tech production machinery is not ``skill-demanding'' but ``skill-enabling.'' Let's emphasize that. It is ``skill-enabling,'' because the Senator from South Carolina is a witness. We brought in BMW, the automobile manufacturer, from Munich, Germany. It is in Spartanburg. It has 2,000 employees, and it will have this time next year hopefully 1,000 more. They were supposed to get another facility down in Mexico. They learned. They said: Wait a minute. The productivity of these people just off the farm, and otherwise skilled workers, can produce, and they have been producing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article in its entirety be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, teen pregnancy is an alarming health, social and economic problem for our country and we must all work together to address it. Every year, more than a million girls under the age of 20 become pregnant at an estimated cost of $6.9 billion to American taxpayers. In South Carolina, teen pregnancy is of particular concern. Our state has the 10th highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation, spending more than a billion dollars a year to cover direct and indirect costs for children born to teen mothers. The efforts of organizations such as the Greenville Council for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy have made a difference--teen pregnancy in Greenville County, SC has decreased 44% since 1988 for girls aged 14- 17. Community awareness and education are the key and I would like bring to my colleagues' attention that May has been designated Teen Pregnancy Prevention Awareness Month. It is our duty to ensure that America's youth have a bright, healthy and secure future.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is an honor for me to recognize one of South Carolina's most talented journalists, Robert Ariail, who was recently selected as one of the three finalists for the Pulitzer Prize in editorial cartooning. This is the second time he has made the Pulitzer shortlist, having also been a 1995 finalist. Since joining The State newspaper in Columbia, SC in 1984, Mr. Ariail has informed and charmed South Carolina readers with a collection of original, insightful and finely-crafted cartoons. Having been a subject of his satire, I can personally attest to his talent. His work has earned him numerous national and international awards including the Overseas Press Club's Thomas Nast Award, the National Headliner Award and the national Sigma Delta Chi Award. I have faith that three times will be the charm for Robert Ariail and the Pulitzer; this prestigious award could not go to a more deserving person.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have all read a lot on Vietnam, but nothing more thoughtful than the brief comments by Charleston, S.C.'s Charles T. ``Bud'' Ferillo, Jr. in the College of Charleston magazine, ``The Cistern.'' Mr. Ferillo, a 1972 graduate of the college, served in Vietnam. I ask that his comments be printed in the Record. The comments follow: Perspectives (By Charles T. (Bud) Ferillo, Jr.) Well before I was drafted, I viewed America's involvement in Vietnam a political mistake at home, a foreign policy of misjudgment in Southeast Asia and a personal tragedy for the tens of thousands of Vietnamese and Americans who paid the price for the misadventure. I had lost my college deferment in 1966 and received my ``Greetings from the President of the United States'' draft letter in early 1967. I decided to do my best and serve even though I thought our policies in Vietnam were wrong. A lot of awful experiences in the war would follow that decision but not one day of regret. In Vietnam you joined your unit one soldier at a time, not in groups that trained together back home or from old time group enlistments. My unit was Company C, 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry, 4th Infantry Division. That night in July 1968 when I joined Charlie Company as an incoming sergeant E-5, I was ordered to take out a night patrol. I was exhausted from days of travel and processing but I didn't sleep a wink all night, and never solidly for the rest of the year I was there. Three days later, on patrol in a cornfield, my radio operator who was walking just behind me was shot through the neck by a sniper. I later lost another radio operator who was shot while clinging perilously to rungs of a hastily departing helicopter. If he had been able to survive his wounds, he would never have survived the fall from the chopper into the trees below. We found his body three days later. Discipline was strongly enforced in our division. No intentional killing of civilians or torture of POWs was tolerated. After several reprimands I had one soldier in my company court-martialed for cutting off the ears of dead North Vietnamese soldiers and mailing them home to his girlfriend. The final tragedy for me was that the man I recommended to succeed me as squad leader in Charlie Company was killed as he walked in the squad leader position in the field the day after I left for home. It is his name I look for first on the wall in Washington when I visit it. There were some light moments, too. I was able to keep a pet monkey in my bunker for several weeks until he learned to pull the pins on hand grenades and kick them off the mountainside to explode below. My war experiences only served to support my initial doubts about our involvement. Once when a convoy of U.S. Army and South Vietnamese Army units that I was traveling with on Highway 1 was ambushed by NVA regulars, we American soldiers jumped off our trucks facing the enemy and returned fire. The South Vietnamese soldiers jumped off the other side of the trucks and ate lunch. Whose war was it? I recall numerous incidents when U.S. Army officers instructed us to count each body part from a NVA soldier as one casualty so as to swell the total body count reported. Similarly, we noted that some known U.S. casualties were listed long after the deaths in Stars and Stripes, the weekly military newspaper. These small deceits, multiplied across the country and if practiced widely, could have contributed to an inaccurate picture of battlefield situations. And it would have been done purposefully. What would I want future generations to know about the nation's experience in Vietnam? First, that governments of men can and do make huge mistakes. In understanding political situations in other cultures, in intelligence gathering and interpretation, and that an overzealous military can and will cover up their miscalculations of enemy strength, exaggerate U.S. military effectiveness and minimize cost projections and outcomes. Once committed, reversals of policy are slow in our system of government and often come too late for too many in harm's way. Second, I would urge future generations to get informed and involved in public affairs as a matter of civic duty and personal interest to guard against poor political leadership that can get the country in deep trouble because of political ideology, showmanship or the pursuit of short-term partisan advantage over the national interest. Not only is eternal vigilance the price of liberty in Jefferson's phrase, but it is also the price of intelligent foreign policy and peace in the world. Third, I would want those who look back at what happened in Vietnam to recall that it was not victories in combat by soldiers and airmen that got us out of there. No, it was not that at all. It was the courage and aggressiveness of people of all ages here at home who protested in the streets that finally turned the political tide in this country against the war. Their courage and tenacity forced a reversal of policy in Washington as time and events revealed military failures and unacceptable losses. Finally, I would not want my children or anyone's children to ever know the details of what war looks like up close. It is very gruesome and terrifying for the safe and the wounded and all those who survive are burdened with the awfulness for their lifetimes. As time passes, the joy and fullness of life can repair the damage and soften its impact for those whose lives lead in healthy directions. For those who returned to dysfunctional families, lack of schooling, joblessness, illness, they are the walking wounded of Vietnam who cannot ever come home. I would want my children to know that I tried to do my duty when my country called even when I disagreed deeply with the policies and conduct of the war in which we were engaged. I would want them to know I felt no regrets or ill feelings toward those who chose not to serve; those decisions of conscience required a certain kind of courage as well as any I saw in the war. Lastly, I would want my children to work for a country that is a more thoughtful, careful and respectful force in a world of divergent cultures, one that expends its resources in war only when our national security interests are genuinely at stake.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember auto racing's Lee Petty, who died last week at the age of 86. A pioneer of the sport, he claimed 55 titles, including the inaugural Daytona 500 in 1959, before a 1961 collision ended his competitive career. His son Richard carried the torch with style, collecting seven Winston Cup trophies and establishing a fan base Lee Petty could have only dreamed of back in the late 1940s when he was scorching North Carolina dirt tracks. But it doesn't end there. Lee's grandson, Kyle, a good friend of mine, continues to find success on the NASCAR circuit and Lee's 17- year-old great-grandson, Adam, recently made his NASCAR debut. The name Petty has become synonymous with racing, and for good reason. Lee Petty had the foresight to invest in a sport with little pedigree but a heaping portion of American guts and glory. He understood that a driver's personality was often as powerful as the car he drove, and spectators would pay good money to go along for the ride. His empire, Petty Enterprises, bears witness to the clarity of that vision, having produced 271 race winners and 10 NASCAR champions. Despite great success, Lee Petty never acted like a superstar. He lived with his wife, Elizabeth, in the same modest house where they had raised their children. Perhaps humbleness, and a willingness to brave the hot sun for hours to sign autographs, will prove to be Lee Petty's greatest contribution to American sports. An editorial in Charleston, SC's daily newspaper, the Post and Courier, concludes: ``In a day where money seems to be the overriding concern of so many athletes, Lee Petty was a reminder of what is important in the sporting world--and why folks gravitate toward the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing. Lee Petty's grown-up NASCAR has never forgotten that a professional sport should be family- and fan-oriented.'' The patriarch of one of professional sports' most celebrated families, Lee Petty has left a legacy that will linger over American racetracks for generations to come.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Pipeline Safety and Community Protection Act of 2000 on behalf of the administration. Yesterday, Vice President Gore transmitted this proposal to the Congress, and requested introduction and referral of the bill to the appropriate committee. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for enhanced safety and environmental protection in pipeline transportation. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a field hearing in Bellingham, Washington, last month on pipeline safety. In addition, I expect the committee to hold another hearing on pipeline safety reauthorization within the next month. Senator Murray has introduced a pipeline safety bill and it is my understanding that an additional pipeline safety bill is to be introduced by Chairman McCain today. I am interested in reviewing all of the bills and look forward to the committee's action on pipeline safety reauthorization in the coming months. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, it has been over 30 years since I set off on my hunger tour of South Carolina, where I observed first- hand the shocking condition of health care and nutritional habits in rural parts of my state. The good news is, we have come a long way since then. The bad news is, there is still much work to be done. Like the ``hunger myopia'' I described in my book ``The Case Against Hunger,'' we suffer today from a sort of ``health care myopia,'' a condition in which a booming economy and low unemployment rates mask a reality--that many Americans eke out a living in society's margins, and most of them lack health insurance. Ironically, as the stock market soars, so do the numbers of uninsured in our country, at a rate of more than 100,000 each month; 53 million Americans are expected to be uninsured by 2007. The health care debate swirls around us, reaching fever pitch in Congress, where I have faith that we will soon reach an agreement on expanding coverage and other important issues. However, I see a need to immediately address the health care concerns of these left-behind and sometimes forgotten citizens. They cannot and should not have to wait for Congress to hammer out health care reform in order to receive the medical care so many of us take for granted. That's why I sponsored, along with Senator Bond, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to double the funding for health centers over the next five years. The Bond-Hollings Resolution to Expand Access to Community Health Centers (REACH) recommends that we start the process with a $150 million increase in FY 2001. Let me emphasize that this measure is a cost-saving investment, not an increase in spending. While ideas about health care have changed dramatically, community health centers have remained steadfast in their mission, quietly serving their communities and doing a tremendous job. Last year, community health centers served 11 million Americans in decrepit inner- city neighborhoods as well as remote rural areas, 4.5 million of which were uninsured. It's no wonder these centers have won across-the-board, bipartisan support. They have a proven track record of providing no- nonsense, preventive and primary medical services at rock-bottom costs. They're the value retailers of the health care industry, if you will, treating a patient at a cost of less than $1.00 per day, or about $350 annually. Not only are these centers providing care at low costs, but they are saving precious health care dollars. An increased investment in health centers will mean fewer uninsured patients are forced to make costly emergency room visits to receive basic care and fewer will utilize hospitals' specialty and inpatient care resources. As a consequence, a major financial burden is lifted from traditional hospitals and government and private health plans. Every federal grant dollar invested in health centers saves $7 for Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance: $6 from lower use of specialty and inpatient care and $1 from reduced emergency room visits. The value of community health centers can be measured in two other significant ways. First of all, the centers' focus on wellness and prevention, services largely unavailable to uninsured people, will lead to savings in treatment down the road. And secondly, health centers foster growth and development in their communities, shoring up the very people they serve. They generate over $14 billion in annual economic activity in some of the nation's most economically depressed areas, employing 50,000 people and training thousands of health professionals and volunteers. It should also be noted that community health centers are just that-- community-based. They are not cookie cutter programs spun from the federal government wheel, but area-specific, locally-managed centers tailored to the unique needs of a community. They are governed by consumer boards composed of patients who utilize the center's services, as well as local business, civic and community leaders. In fact, it is stipulated that center clients make up at least 51 percent of board membership. This set-up not only ensures accountability to the local community and taxpayers, but keeps a constant check on each center's effectiveness in addressing community needs. In South Carolina, community health centers have a long history of meeting the care requirements of the areas they serve. The Beaufort- Jasper Comprehensive Health Center in Ridgeland, the Franklin C. Fetter Family Health Center in Charleston, and Family Health Centers, Inc. in Orangeburg were among the first community health centers established in the nation. The Beaufort-Jasper Center was very innovative for its day, in the late 1960s, tackling not only health care needs, but related needs for clean water, indoor toilets and other sanitary services. Today, the number of South Carolina health centers has grown to 15. They currently provide more than 167,000 people, 10 percent of which are uninsured, with a wide range of primary car services. Yet despite the success story, a need to throw a wider net is obvious. Of the 3.8 million South Carolinians, nearly 600,000 have no form of health insurance. That means roughly 15% of the state population is uninsured. Another 600,000 residents are ``underinsured,'' meaning that they do not receive comprehensive health care coverage from their insurance plans and must pay out-of-pocket for a number of specialty services, procedures, tests and medications. South Carolina's statistics are mirrored nationwide. The swelling ranks of the uninsured are outgrowing our present network of community health centers. Adopting this sense of the Senate amendment will ensure the reach of community health centers expands to meet increasing demand. It is our responsibility to continue providing our neediest citizens with a basic health care safety net. What better way to do that than by building on a program with a record of positive, fiscally responsible results? Everyone can benefit and take pride in such a worthwhile investment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to recognize one of South Carolina's most outstanding athletes, Beth Daniel, who was recently inducted into the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) Tour Hall of Fame--only the 16th woman to claim this prestigious honor. A native of Charleston, SC, Daniel moved to Greenville to attend Furman University and play collegiate golf. While a student at Furman, she captured the U.S. Women's Amateur title twice, in 1975 and 1977. She was a member of the 1976 and 1978 U.S. Curtis Cup teams and the 1978 World Cup team. Since joining the LPGA Tour in 1979, she has collected an impressive 32 career victories and seven LPGA awards, including the 1979 LPGA Rookie of the Year award. Beth had a phenomenal year in 1990, winning seven tournaments, including a major--the Mazda LPGA Championship--and setting a record for consecutive rounds in the 60s with nine. Also in 1990, she was named the Rolex Player of the Year and the United Press International Female Athlete of the Year. In 1995, she entered the South Carolina Golf Hall of Fame and, in 1996, became the third player in LPGA history to cross the $5 million mark in career earnings. She was also a member of the victorious 1996 U.S. Solheim Cup team. Beth Daniel's accomplishments on the LPGA Tour and her many contributions to women's golf make her an excellent addition to the LPGA Hall of Fame. She is a credit to her sport, to Charleston, and to the State of South Carolina.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, last month a former Charleston, SC resident and longtime friend, Mary Bodne, passed away at the age of 93. She and her husband, Ben, a Charleston native, owned and operated the Algonquin Hotel in New York City for over 41 years. In honor of their dedication to historic preservation and their service to all of those who had the pleasure of staying at the Algonquin, I ask that the attached article from the New York Times be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the New York Times, Mar. 4, 2000] Mary Bodne, Ex-Owner of Algonquin Hotel, Dies at 93 (By Douglas Martin) Mary Bodne, who with her husband, Ben, fell in love with the Algonquin Hotel on their honeymoon and later owned it for 41 years, died on Monday at Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan. She was 93. She lived at the elegant Midtown hotel, the literary hangout of the Jazz Age, from 1946 until her death, spending most afternoons in her lobby armchair greeting regulars. It all began when the Bodnes, newly married, lunched at the Algonquin in the early 1920's and sighted Will Rogers, whom they had seen the night before at the Ziegfeld Follies; Douglas Fairbanks Sr., Sinclair Lewis, Eddie Cantor, Gertrude Lawrence and Beatrice Lillie. The bride joked to her husband, an oil distributor in Charleston, S.C., that after he bought the baseball team he dreamed about, he should get her the hotel. Although Mr. Bodne toyed with buying the Pittsburgh Pirates, he never bought a ball club. But in 1946 he paid around $1 million for the 200-room hotel at 59 West 44th Street, between Fifth Avenue and the Avenue of the Americas. The couple promptly moved in. For the former Mary Mazo, the Algonquin was the final address in an odyssey that began in Odessa, Ukraine, where she was the second child in a large Jewish family that fled the pogroms when she was an infant. A family story has it that the baby Mary began to cry in an attic while Cossacks rampaged below, but that she miraculously hushed up before it was too late. It is said that Mrs. Bodne's later loquaciousness was compensation for that momentary silence. The Mazo family immigrated to Charleston, where the father, Elihu, opened the city's first Jewish delicatessen. When George Gershwin and DuBose Heyward were working on ``Porgy and Bess,'' they were frequent customers. They would also discuss the creation of the show at dinners in the Mazo family home. Decades later, the Mazo tradition of hospitality would continue at the Algonquin. Mrs. Bodne cooked chicken soup for an ailing Laurence Olivier. She baby-sat for Simone Signoret, who called her ``one of my three truest friends.'' Mrs. Bodne had a gift for acquiring house seats for sold- out Broadway shows for desperate friends. Ella Fitzgerald was so grateful that she regularly sang to Mrs. Bodne whenever she stayed at the hotel. The Irish writer Brendan Behan was so touched by a courtesy that he declared, ``Mary, your son will live to be pope,'' even though Mrs. Bodne was Jewish and had two daughters. The daughters, Renee Colby Chubet and Barbara Anspach, both live in Manhattan. Mrs. Bodne is also survived by four sisters: Annie Rabin and Celie Weissman, both of Manhattan, and Minnie Meislin and Norma Mazo, both of Charleston. The Bodnes bought the Algonquin, built in 1902 in the French Renaissance style, from Frank Case, who had catered to writers and editors from The New Yorker and other nearby publications. Among them were Dorothy Parker, Robert Benchley, Franklin P. Adams, Edna Ferber and Alexander Woollcott. They gathered around several tables before settling on the round one that became famous, not least because of Mr. Case's knack for publicity. When he bought the hotel, Mr. Bodne, who enjoyed promoting boxing matches, said he would not attempt to recreate Mr. Case's role as boniface of the literati. But he said he regarded the Algonquin as an investment and, as such, had no intention of changing its essential character. So he kept the mahogany panels and deep-pile carpeting, while adding such amenities as color television and air-conditioning. The Bodnes ended up playing host to a new generation of literary and show business celebrities, like the writer John Henry Faulk when he was blacklisted and exiled from Hollywood. Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe made so much noise working on a musical that the other guests complained; the show was the hugely successful ``My Fair Lady.'' Mr. Bodne, who died in 1992, had vowed that he would sell the charmingly dowager hotel the day it needed self-service elevators. He sold it in 1987 to the Aoki Corporation, the Brazilian subsidiary of a Japanese corporation, which in a 1991 renovation installed self-service elevators. In 1997, Aoki sold the hotel to the Camberley Hotel Company, which promptly did its own $4 million renovation, promising no major changes. In an article in The New York Times, Julie V. Iovine noted that the newsstand had been sacrificed for space to sell coffee mugs, and that door numbers had been replaced by plaques featuring remarks by the famed Algonquin wits. The impression, she wrote, was ``self- consciousness verging on kitsch.'' At a party celebrating the makeover, Mrs. Bodne sat on the new velvet chair that had replaced her beloved old sagging one. ``What I've seen looks very nice, but it will never look like my old Algonquin now,'' she said. ``No, darling, I know it will never be the same.'' Except for the cat. Each owner of the Algonquin, including the Bodnes, has kept a lobby cat. The current one is named Matilda.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you will see that when we started the fiscal year the debt was $5.656 trillion It has gone up to $5.750 trillion. We have increased the debt. Everyone is talking about ``surplus.'' What are we going to do with all of these great surpluses? We do not have a surplus. We had a deficit last year of $127 billion. As the debt goes up, I am trying to clear up the confusion in this particular body rather than engaging in this charade. When the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee keeps talking about how he paid down the public debt by $1.1 trillion, here is the actual record as provided in the Budget Committee of the non-Social Security surplus: In the year 2001, $11.1 billion; 2002, $3.2 billion; 2003, $6.5 billion; 2004, $8.7 billion; 2005, $12.7 billion, for a total of $42.2 billion. The distinguished chairman says he pays down the debt $1.1 trillion. It is actually $42 billion in non-Social Security surpluses. And, of course, the rest of it--over $1 trillion--is Social Security. Yet, in the same breath, he maintains that we are saving Social Security with a lockbox. I pointed out a second ago that we have nothing but IOUs in the lockbox. Let me refer to the most recent Congressional Budget Office figures on the Social Security surplus. As of last year, 1999, we had a surplus of $125 billion. In this past fiscal year, we expect a surplus of $154 billion; 2001, $166 billion; 2002, $183 billion; 2003, $196 billion; 2004, $209 billion; and 2005, $225 billion. That is how you may be able to use the expression ``pay down the debt.'' They say pay down the public debt because they don't want to say they are separating, in their minds, the public debt from the government debt. You simply can't do that. There is just one debt. We owe it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the trust funds that have been looted already to balance the budget.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Two minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming talked about the commitment to pay down the national debt, but on page 5, the national debt is listed beginning on line 20, fiscal year 2000, as $5.625 trillion going up to, on page 6, $5.923 trillion. It's an increase in the debt of $297,712,000. Here is the Senator's commitment to reducing the national debt. There is no commitment that I have seen. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a listing of the national debt as it has gone up since the days of President Truman.