Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in my over 33 years' experience as a Senator with over 30 years on Defense Appropriations, I have worked with a good eight to ten Chairmen of the Armed Services Committee and Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and, of course, their numerous counterparts from the House side. One constant thread of dedication and stability in our national defense has been Daniel Inouye from Hawaii. His tremendous sacrifice for the security of this nation was recognized with a Distinguished Service Cross. All of us engaged in World War II will tell you that the citation deserves Medal of Honor recognition, but it was not to be because he was a member of the Nisei fighters, the Japanese-American unit that had to fight the U.S. authorities first before it could fight the enemy. Now, in peacetime, Senator Inouye has been the stalwart for the strong defense of this nation. This week, the Ambassador of Japan, Shunji Yanai, presented Senator Inouye with the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun, one of the Japanese government's highest honors, citing in particular his work fostering good relations between the United States and Japan. I can think of no one more deserving of this honor. Senator Inouye has demonstrated the same courage, character and leadership here in Washington that he did as a soldier. I offer him my heartfelt congratulations on this distinguished recognition.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, these funds are held in trust for the specific purpose for which the taxes are collected. Under corporate law, it is a felony to pay off the company debt with the pension fund. But in Washington we pay down the public debt with trust funds, call it a surplus, and they give us the ``Good Government'' award. To make it sound correct, we divide the debt in two: The public debt and the private debt. Of course, our Government is public, and the law treats the debt as public without separation. The separation allows Washington politicians to say: We have paid down the public debt and have a surplus. There is no mention, of course, that the Government debt is increased by the same amount that the public debt is decreased. It is like paying off your MasterCard with your Visa card and saying you do not owe anything. Dr. Dan Crippen, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, describes this as ``taking from one pocket and putting it in the other.'' For years we have been using the trust funds to report a unified budget and a unified deficit. This has led people to believe the Government was reporting net figures. It sounded authentic. But as the unified deficit appeared less and less, the national debt continued to increase. While the unified deficit in 1997 was $21.9 billion, the actual deficit was $187.8 billion. In 1998 the unified budget reported a surplus of $70 billion, but actually there was a deficit of $109 billion. In 1999 the ``unified surplus'' was $124 billion, but the actual deficit was $127.8 billion. Now comes the Presidential campaign. Social Security is a hot topic. Both parties are shouting: Save Social Security. Social Security lockbox. The economy is humming, booming. With high employment, the Social Security revenues have increased. It appears that, separate from Social Security, there will be enough trust fund money to compute a surplus. We have reached the millennium--Utopia--enough money to report a surplus without spending Social Security. Washington jargon now changes. Instead of a ``unified budget,'' the Government now reports an ``on-budget'' and an ``off-budget.'' This is so we can all call it an on-budget surplus, meaning without Social Security. But to call it an on-budget surplus, the Government spends $96 billion from the other trust funds. We ended last year with a deficit of $128 billion--not a surplus. The President's budget just submitted shows an actual deficit each year for the next 5 years. Instead of paying down the debt, the President shows, on page 420 of his budget, the debt increasing from the year 2000 to the year 2013--$5.686 trillion to $6.815 trillion, an increase of $1.129 trillion. They are all talking about paying off the debt by 2013, and the actual document they submit shows the debt increasing each year, and over that period an increase of over $1 trillion. Each year, Congress spends more than the President's budgets. There is no chance of a surplus with both sides proposing to reduce revenues with a tax cut. But we have a sweetheart deal: The Republicans will call a deficit a surplus, so they can buy the vote with tax cuts; the Democrats will call the deficit a surplus, so they can buy the vote with increased spending. The worst abuse of campaign finance is using the Federal budget to buy votes. Alan Greenspan could stop this. He could call a deficit a deficit. Instead, appearing before Congress in his confirmation hearing, Greenspan, talking of the Federal budget, stated: ``I would fear very much that these huge surpluses . . .'' and on and on. We are in real trouble when Greenspan calls huge deficits ``huge surpluses.'' Greenspan thinks his sole role is to protect the financial markets. He does not want the U.S. Government coming into the market borrowing billions to pay its deficit, crowding out private capital, and running up interest costs. But Congress' job is to not only protect the financial markets but the overall economy. Our job, as the board of directors for the Federal Government, is to make sure the Government pays its bills. In short, our responsibility is to eliminate waste. The biggest waste of all is to continue to run up the debt with devastating interest costs for nothing. In good times, the least we can do is put this Government on a pay-as-you-go basis. Greenspan's limp admonition to ``pay down the debt'' is just to cover his backside. He knows better. He should issue a clarion call to stop increasing the debt. While he is raising interest rates to cool the economy, he should categorically oppose tax cuts to stimulate it. Our only hope is the free press. In the earliest days, Thomas Jefferson observed, given a choice between a free government and a free press, he would choose the latter. Jefferson believed strongly that with the press reporting the truth to the American people, the Government would stay free. Our problem is that the press and media have joined the conspiracy to defraud. They complain lamely that the Federal budget process is too complicated, so they report ``surplus.'' Complicated it is. But as to being a deficit or a surplus is clear cut; it is not complicated at all. All you need to do is go to the Department of the Treasury's report on public debt. They report the growth in the national debt every day, every minute, on the Internet at ``www.publicdebt.treas.gov.'' In fact, there is a big illuminated billboard on Sixth Avenue in New York that reports the increase in the debt by the minute. At present, it shows that we are increasing the debt every minute by $894,000. Think of that--$894,000 a minute. Of course, increase the debt, and interest costs rise. Already, interest costs exceed the defense budget. Interest costs, like taxes, must be paid. Worse, while regular taxes support defense, and other programs, interest taxes support waste. Running a deficit of over $100 billion today, any tax cut amounts to an interest tax increase--an increase in waste. If the American people realized what was going on, they would run us all out of town. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if people back home only knew. This whole town is engaged in the biggest fraud. Tom Brokaw has written that the greatest generation suffered the Depression, won the war, and then came back to lead. They not only won the war but were conscientious about paying for that war and Korea and Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson balanced the budget in 1969. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the record of all the Presidents, since President Truman down through President Clinton, of the deficit and debt, the national debt, and interest costs.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson balanced the budget in 1969. At that time, the national debt was $365 billion with an interest cost of only $16 billion. Now, under a new generation without the cost of a war, the debt has soared to $5.6 trillion with annual interest costs of $365 billion. That is right. We spend $1 billion a day for nothing. It does not buy any defense, any education, any health care, or highways. Astoundingly, since President Johnson balanced the budget, we have increased spending $349 billion for nothing. Early each morning, the Federal Government goes down to the bank and borrows $1 billion and adds it to the national debt. We have not had a surplus for 30 years. Senator Trent Lott, commenting on President Clinton's State of the Union Address, said the talk cost $1 billion a minute. For an hour-and-a-half talk, that would be $90 billion a year. Governor George W. Bush's tax cut costs $90 billion a year. Together, that is $180 billion. Just think, we can pay for both the Democratic and Republican programs with the money we are spending on interest and still have $185 billion to pay down the national debt. Instead, the debt increases, interest costs increase, while all in town, all in the Congress, shout: Surplus, surplus, surplus. Understand the game. Ever since President Johnson's balanced budget, the Government has spent more each year than it has taken in--a deficit. The average deficit for the past 30 years was $175 billion a year. This is with both Democratic and Republican Presidents and Democratic and Republican Congresses. Somebody wants to know why the economy is good? If you infuse $175 billion a year for some 30 years and do not pay for it, it ought to be good. The trick to calling a deficit a surplus is to have the Government borrow from itself. The Federal Government, like an insurance company, has various funds held in reserve to pay benefits of the program-- Social Security, Medicare, military retirement, civilian retirement, unemployment compensation, highway funds, airport funds, railroad retirement funds. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of trust funds looted to balance this budget.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the manager.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to inquire of the manager whether it is possible for any spent nuclear fuel to go to South Carolina under the provisions of Section 102, ``Backup Storage Capacity'' of the manager's substitute amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize my friend William J. ``Red'' Wood who, since 1948, has been making Sullivan's Island, SC a better place to live and work. He came to the island, married, bought a home and raised six children, all the while giving back to a community that he deeply loves. Red Wood's decades of service to Sullivan's Island make him one of the town's most valuable resources. It is only fitting that the Moultrie News recently recognized his achievements. Red has never hesitated to get involved. He joined the volunteer fire department during his early years on the island and helped to organize the Island Club, which sponsored the local Boy Scout troop. Red also helped start the island's Little League program and served on the township's recreation committee. He has served on the town council for five terms and, during his first term, held the building inspector's post. In that capacity, he worked on several significant projects including East Cooper Hospital and the first hotel built in Mount Pleasant, SC. He believes his greatest civic achievement, however, is having a hand in incorporating Sullivan's Island. Red worked for over 30 years in the engineering department of the Charleston Naval Shipyard and has devoted his time to numerous commitments on Sullivan's Island, his wife Monica and their children. My wife, Peatsy, and I salute all of Red's accomplishments and his continuing service to Sullivan's Island. We wish him many peaceful days of fishing and shrimping. He certainly deserves them.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the World Trade Conference in Seattle was violence run amok. But it was a good reminder of the trauma that brought about our nation's high standard of living. Labor rights were obtained only after the murder of workers at Hay Market Square in Chicago. Environmental protection was obtained only after poisoned deaths at Love Canal. Safety laws were obtained only after poisoned food, poisoned drugs, and babies burned in their cribs. It took the trauma of class actions to make America aware of tobacco's injury, and it took President Teddy Roosevelt to hem in the robber barons with antitrust laws. The excesses of the free market--of free trade--can only be controlled by government. The peaceful demonstrators in Seattle were demonstrating against government's failure to control. The threat of ``free trade'' was America's first lesson. The fledgling colony had just won its freedom when the mother country counselled ``free trade''. It was Riccardo's famous doctrine of ``comparative advantage''. Britain would trade with us what it produced best--the United States would trade back what it produced best. Alexander Hamilton, in his famous booklet ``Reports on Manufacturers,'' told the Brits to ``bug off.'' ``We are not going to remain your colony, exporting our timber, iron, and agriculture--and importing the finished products from England.'' The second bill (the first was for the U.S. Seal) to pass the national Congress on July 4, 1789 was ``protectionist''--a tariff bill of 50 percent over sixty-some articles. Later, when it was suggested that we import the steel for the transcontinental railroad, Abraham Lincoln said, ``No'', and a high tariff was imposed on steel. In the Depression, Roosevelt saved the family farm with subsidies and protective quotas. And it was President Eisenhower who placed quotas on oil. World War II was won in the main by the United States' industrial and agricultural might-- might built with protectionism. After World War II the United States had the world's only industry. The task was to build a free market--to defeat communism with capitalism. The government--not the free market--instituted the Marshall Plan; sent money, equipment and expertise abroad for Europe and the Pacific Rim to rebuild. Today, our problem is that the Marshall Plan worked. The vanquished of World War II have become victors in production, in market share, in the global competition. Today, Japan produces more than the United States--and has the largest balance of trade; the United States the largest deficit in trade. We have tried and tried to open markets by setting the example, pleading ``free trade,'' giving away market share, giving away our technology, giving away our production. But nations, like the United States in the early days, are determined to build their industrial strength, and today controlled capitalism governs trade. Technology is obtained; market share is seized; production is transferred with controlled capitalism. Trade is not free, not controlled. The fall of the Wall has presented us with a new threat. Four billion workers have been liberated from communism and oppression. They are ready to work regardless of pay, safety or the environment. It's a given in manufacture that labor costs represent 30 percent of volume and you can save as much as 20 percent of volume by moving your production to a low wage country. Technology now can be transferred on a computer chip to any place in the world--and finance it by satellite. A corporation with $500 million in sales can retain its executive office and sales force in-country, but move its production to a low wage country and make $100 million before taxes. Or it can continue to work its own employees and go bankrupt. The rush is for production offshore--downsize onshore--and keep crying ``free trade.'' These corporations and our competitors have been spoiled. At all the trade conferences they have come to expect the Special Trade Representative to arrive bearing gifts. They know the United States doesn't enforce its trade laws. They know the President and the Congress are controlled by corporate money. They have come to expect the United States to come crying ``fair trade'', but giving away the store. President Clinton's invitation to Seattle was like an invite to a birthday party. But rather than bearing gifts, the demonstrators caused the President to call for labor rights and environmental protection. The competition was so spoiled they took the United States' position at Seattle as an invasion of their sovereignty. The security of the United States is like a three legged stool. The one leg of the Nation's values is admired the world around. The second leg of military power is unquestioned. But the third leg of economic strength has been fractured. For 50 years we have been losing production, technology and market share. Today, this threatens a loss of the middle class, the weakening of our democracy--the loss of our security as a nation. When Henry Ford started the assembly line he wanted to be sure that his workers could make enough to buy the car they were producing. thus began the strong middle class in America. The labor movement brought health care and other benefits so that the worker could buy a home, pay for health care, send their kids to college and afford a vacation trip. The WTO puts this social contract in jeopardy. It's one-size-fits-all capitalism only dumbs down America's standard of living. For years the United States has had and continues to have the most productive industrial worker in the world. But we have less and less of them each year. The cold war policy of free trade sacrificed our electronics, textiles, shoes, steel, hand tools, shipbuilding, etc. Jack Welch of General Electric has just instituted an affirmative action plan to export GE's jobs to Mexico. Now, with NAFTA, the rest of our manufacturing is headed South. Worse, the internet doesn't provide enough jobs to build a nation--and it doesn't export. Microsoft, rated the No. 1 industry in America, has only 22,000 jobs in the United States compared to General Motors with 250,000. As Akio Morita cautioned years ago, ``That world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.'' The United States becomes weaker each day. The time has come to break with the failed trade policies of the past and instead pursue a policy that zealously promotes the national interest while at the same time remains true to our core values of promoting both economic growth and social justice. This will only be accomplished by recognizing that the WTO system is a relic of a bygone era. The WTO system was an instrument of the cold war. It served as an adjunct in the much larger strategic struggle between East and West. It required the U.S. to sustain concessions necessary to maintain the cohesion of the Western alliance. For all the talk about opening markets, WTO and its predecessor, the GATT, have proven to be abysmal failures. In 1979, Ambassador Robert Strauss proclaimed that the Tokyo round will open new markets for U.S. companies, yet from the Tokyo round to the Uruguay round, the U.S. racked up over a trillion dollars worth of trade deficits. In 1994, President Clinton proclaimed that the Uruguay round would crack open markets. Since that time the U.S. continued with record trade deficits and last year recorded its first $300 billion deficit. In each successive round, the U.S. agreed to asymmetrical market opening commitments. Each time we concluded a round, the trade deficit widened. Perhaps the WTO system's biggest failure is its claim that it is raising living standards. The argument made in Seattle was that market forces alone would raise living standards--an argument we rejected in our own country at the turn of the century. The reality is that unfettered free trade has unleashed a race to the bottom as nations in the developing world engage in a vicious competition to attract foreign investment. For example, in his book ``One World Ready or Not, Bill Greider vividly describes this race to the bottom, ``The toy industry--much like textiles and garments, shoes, electronics assembly and other low-wage sectors--existed (and thrived) by exploiting a crude ladder of desperate competition among the poorest nations. Its factories regularly hopped to new locations where wages were even lower, where the governments would be even more tolerant of abusive practices.'' We must rebuild. Get real! No more of this ``setting the example.'' No more crying, ``free trade,'' ``fair trade,'' ``level the playing field.'' No more of this harassing others to be like us. Our job is to compete; to protect labor, protect our environment, protect our production--to protect the United States' standard of living. The free market won't do this. Only government will. Protection is the fundamental of government. We have the Army to protect us from without, the FBI to protect us from within. We have Social Security to protect us from the ravages of old age, Medicare and Medicaid to protect us from ill health. We have EPA to protect the environment, FDA to protect our food and drugs, the FCC to protect communications, the FAA to protect air travel, the Consumer Protection Agency to provide safe products, and the Federal Trade Commission to protect us from the restraint of trade. Don't be misled by the cry of ``globalization.'' This is the chant of our corporate fifth column. Silicon Valley is not the answer. This is the crowd that government gave the Internet; that government trained at Illinois and Stanford; that government subsidized with sematech; and now the billionaires all want to eliminate the estate tax, eliminate capital gains, eliminate state tort laws, eliminate the immigration laws, eliminate taxes on the Internet, eliminate the antitrust laws--just eliminate the government. Let's stop running against government. We are the government. Our task is to make government work. Our responsibility, is to keep America strong. We must organize to do battle. The first order of business is to eliminate the Special Trade Representative who looks to desert and represent some country against us. Next, merge and downsize the 28 departments and agencies that now deal with trade into a Department of Trade and Commerce. Then organize Congress' handling of trade issues. Our competition presents a solid front. Any trade measure to protect America's jobs is immediately opposed by Japan's 100 consultants and law firms, by America's big banks, the Trilateral Commission, the Business Roundtable, the National Manufacturers Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the consultants and campuses financed by corporate America, the retailers, the newspaper editorialists financed by the retailers, the business lobbyists, and most of the 60,000 lawyers in Washington. Trade bills today are passed in Congress by multinational corporations joining with the foreigners and, thereupon, the President garners the votes with local pork. The common good is ignored. Once organized, we must repeal the tax laws that subsidize the export of American jobs. Then abolish the International Trade Commission that habitually cancels the findings of injury by the International Trade Administration. Remove the Executive veto of trade findings so that an industry fighting for relief can count on it when upheld by the courts. In short, enforce our trade laws now on the books. This will stabilize domestic production. This will restore trust in government. The symbol of the Seattle ministerial was not the black hooded hoodlums intent on causing mayhem. Instead, they were Boeing machinists who led the large labor marches that snaked through the streets of Seattle. Boeing, an export powerhouse, was supposed to stand out as a shining example of the open trading system. But Boeing is experiencing the loss of jobs to government-financed Airbus; to China where the price of admission into the Chinese market is an agreement to shift production from the United States to factories in mainland China. The machinists did not join the mayhem. They trust the government to act in their interest--to act in the United States' interest. For this to happen, as Lincoln said, ``The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3419 the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This bill creates a separate modal administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, to administer the commercial motor vehicle safety laws and make needed improvements to our highway safety programs. To secure enactment of this important legislation, Senator McCain and I worked with our colleagues in the House to craft a compromise bill. I would like to commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Democrat Oberstar of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their efforts on this compromise proposal. The Administration supports this legislation and the Secretary of Transportation has requested that the Senate complete consideration of this legislation prior to the adjournment of the first session of the 106th Congress. As many of you may know, I introduced legislation in the 1980s to establish a separate modal administration within the Department of Transportation for the motor carrier industry. Since safety oversight was moved from the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1966, truck and bus safety oversight has been a part of the Federal Highway Administration. H.R. 3419 continues the bifurcation of motor carrier economic and safety regulation. The economic regulatory authority will still be vested at the Surface Transportation Board, and the safety regulatory authority will be designated to the new Administration. Under the current regulatory structure there is a separate regulatory agency for rail, transit, air, and maritime transportation, but no primary agency for the largest mode of commercial transportation--the trucking industry. Establishing a separate agency with the stated responsibility for making the highways safer would be an important step forward in highlighting the importance of truck and bus safety as well as improving regulatory efficiency. I am pleased that members of the Senate and House have agreed to establish a new modal administration; we have high expectations this change will lead to tougher standards, more expeditious rule makings, and a greater degree of enforcement than has been the norm in recent years. The trucking industry generates over 80% of the revenues derived from the domestic transportation of cargo. The industry has undergone fantastic growth in the past five years. The number of carriers operating in the trucking industry has close to doubled since 1994 alone. Overall, the volume of truck traffic on the highways in this country is astounding, and clearly has an impact on safety. As many of you know, I was not a supporter of deregulating the trucking industry, and I question whether this policy has contributed to our present safety concerns. The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee has held several hearings on the subject of motor carrier safety in the last year. These hearings have included testimony from a number of organizations, including the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, the Chairman of the National Transportation Board and consumer groups all expressing concern about the Office of Motor Carriers and stating the need for reform. Chairman McCain and I have worked to incorporate many of the recommendations by these groups into the legislation we are considering today. I would like to briefly summarize some of the major provisions and important consequences of H.R. 3419. This legislation undoubtedly will increase the overall number of safety inspections by requiring that all new entrants to the truck and bus industry undergo a safety review. The bill also requires that carriers become familiar with motor carrier safety regulations and undergo a safety review in order to obtain operating authority. Currently 25,000 to 40,000 new carriers enter into interstate commerce annually. In order to obtain operating authority under the present system, new operators must show proof of insurance and sign a form attesting that they are familiar with safety regulations. This new provision would require that new carriers be designated as ``new entrants'' until the completion of a successful safety review. The intent of this provision is to make sure that new operators have basic safety management practices in place. During their first eighteen months of operation, they would need to show that they have critical safety elements in place--for example, drug testing, maintenance plans, and driving records such as logbooks. This safety review is not intended to be a time consuming investigation of the property and drivers, nor is it intended to be a barrier to entry for new operators; in fact we have stipulated that the Secretary should take into consideration the needs of small businesses when conducting the rulemaking on new entrant safety reviews. However, there is broad consensus that an entry level safety review to ensure a minimum level of safety and compliance with federal safety regulations. I am pleased that this bill increases the number of motor carrier safety inspectors by requiring that DOT certify private contractors to perform safety audits. I would also like to commend Senator Breaux for his leadership on the issue of third party inspectors. His introduction of S. 1524, the Motor Carrier Safety Specialist Certification Act, following the Mother's Day bus accident in New Orleans was instrumental in demonstrating the need for additional qualified inspectors. These third party auditors will be required to conduct the initial safety reviews of the new carriers and are likely to lead to an increasing number of inspections and audits overall. These auditors will be certified by DOT to perform safety audits and inspections, however DOT will retain the authority to grant operating authority and issue ratings--we have no plans to delegate this vital enforcement authority to the private sector. The Secretary is directed to complete a rulemaking to establish how third party inspectors are to be certified. However, our expectation is that their role is to assist with the collection of data, not supersede the existing authority of the DOT. This legislation authorizes an additional $140 million a year for motor carrier safety and data improvements over the levels established in TEA-21, the federal safety transportation bill that was passed in the last year. Of that money $65 million is guaranteed under the budgetary firewalls established in TEA-21. The bulk of this funding will go directly to the states through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). This grant program to the states is the underpinning for the enforcement of commercial motor vehicle safety laws and I am pleased that we are more than doubling the funding authorized for this important safety program. I look forward to working the Department Transportation to ensure this new agency will have adequate personnel to achieve the important safety objectives set forth in this bill. H.R. 3419 also requires many data improvements, including periodic refilling of motor carrier information, which means that safety statistics on trucks and buses are soon to be more up to date and that improvement data will be available to the public. Currently, only twenty percent of the carriers operating in interstate commerce have been inspected or audited in relation to safety ratings by the Department of Transportation--this number is insufficient. In order to increase the number of safety rated carriers, accurate data is required. H.R. 3419 directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in cooperation with the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, to carry out a program to improve the collection and analysis of data on commercial motor vehicle crashes, including crash causation and requires NHTSA to integrate driver citation and conviction information. In addition, the Secretary is directed to conduct a crash causation study to determine the causes of, and contributing factors to, crashes involving commercial motor vehicles--all interested parties, including victims and safety groups, should be consulted in designing the study. The legislation also requires the Department of Transportation to disclose potential conflicts of interest, and requires DOT to study whether disclosure obligations are sufficient to avoid conflicts of interest. Proper safety regulation is dependent on thorough and impartial research. H.R. 3419 also toughens Commercial Drives License (CDL) requirements. It will require that medical qualification certificates be part of all CDLs. It will prohibit the masking of convictions on CDL's, thereby ending the practice of erasing convictions for increased fines and plea bargaining down convictions, and erasing convictions in exchange for attending bypass or educational programs. The legislation also will provide access to driver records for safety enforcement and hiring purposes--driver records would be made available to employees, current employers, future employers and law enforcement personnel on request. This language will address concerns about inacurate driver records and ensure that the practice of masking convictions or records is ended. This provision lists parties which should have access to the driving records of commercial motor vehicle operators, however, the expection is that parties such as insurers which currently have access to this information will continue to do so. I am pleased that this legislation now includes a separate school bus CDL endorsement. By requiring the Secretary to establish a rule making for a CDL endorsement, which includes at a minimum, a driving skills test in a school bus, as well as safety procedures for loading and unloading, using emergency exits and traversing highway rail grade crossings, this bill places a greater emphasis on the safety of transporting our children. H.R. 3419 also includes recommendations from the DOT IG's report. These recommendations call for the strengthening of enforcement policy by increasing fines, requiring greater monitoring of carriers and standardizing data. The IG's report clearly indicates that we need to do more in the way of compliance reviews and clearing up the back-log of regulatory initiatives that have not been completed. These initiatives are overdue, and the public deserves an aggressive pro- active safety policy. Several of the IG's recommendations address the enforcement of civil penalties to ensure greater compliance with Federal motor carrier safety and commercial drivers' license laws. Section 222 of H.R. 3419 includes provisions establishing minimum, as well as maximum, penalties for violations. Because situations arise when the Secretary may choose to exercise discretion in the assessment of maximum penalties, a provision was included to allow assessment of penalties at a lower level than established by this provision in extraordinary circumstances. The goal of this provision is to provide administrative flexibility while ensuring that the previous abuses in motor carrier safety enforcement practices are not perpetuated by the new agency. In assessing penalties for violations, the Secretary's exercise of discretion under extraordinary circumstances to reduce or eliminate fines should only be used in rare and unusual conditions and this legislation requires that the Secretary document the justification for such a situation. In addition, the bill will require the Secretary of Transportation and the IG to periodically report to the Congress on their progress implementing not only the application of civil penalties but all of the IG's recommendations. Additionally, the legislation addresses the issue concerning truck inspections at the US-Mexico border. Currently, far too few trucks are being inspected at the US-Mexico border and far too few inspected trucks comply with U.S. safety standards. I should note that I do not support Mexican truckers operating in the United States, because this policy ultimately threatens public safety. For example, according to the DOT Inspector General, at the border crossing in El Paso, Texas, an average of 1,300 trucks enter daily, yet only one inspector is on duty allowing for only 10 to 14 truck inspections daily. At other crossings, there are no inspectors. Of those Mexican trucks inspected, about 44 percent were placed out of service because of serious safety violations. This contrasts with a 25 percent out-of-service rate for US trucks and 17 percent for Canadian trucks. This safety record is unacceptable. The DOT's Inspector General confirmed last year that 68 Mexican trucks were found operating beyond the border commercial zones, where they are legally allowed to work and are probably involved in US cabotage reserved for US truckers. H.R. 3419 would reaffirm the prohibition on foreign motor carriers operating outside the boundaries of a commercial zone along the U.S.-Mexico border. Foreign trucks that are found to be operating outside the commercial zones without authority will be subject to civil penalties. In conclusion, I would like to ask my colleagues for their support in the passage of this legislation. I would like to thank the following Senate staff for their work on this bill; Debbie Hersman, Carl Bentzel, Kevin Kayes and Moses Boyd, Ann Begeman, Charlotte Casey, and Mark Buese. I would also like to thank House staffers, Clyde Woodle, Dave Heymsfeld, Ward McCarragher, Jess Sharp, Chris Bertram, Patty Doersch, Jack Schenendorf and Roger Nober. These staffers all worked hard to help reach a bipartisan compromise. H.R. 3419 is a good bill. I strongly support the passage of H.R. 3419 and look forward to its enactment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today with both pride and sadness as we say goodbye to a long time member of my staff, Ivan Schlager. I have known Ivan for nearly 20 years. One cold afternoon at Northwestern University in 1983, Ivan approached a woman, he thought to be a staffer on the Hollings for President Campaign and offered to volunteer on that effort. That ``staffer'' turned out to my wife, Peatsy Hollings, and before Ivan knew what had happened, he was driving and wading through the snow of New Hampshire in support of my effort. After finishing at Northwestern and law school at Georgetown, Ivan joined the Commerce Committee staff in 1989 and began to assist both Senator Rockefeller and myself at the Subcommittee on Tourism and Foreign Commerce. In this job, he played an important role on many of the international trade agreements concluded over the past decade, including most notably the Uruguay Round agreement which created the WTO and the North American Free Trade Agreement. I truly believe that Ivan is one of the most knowledgeable and substantive individuals with regard to international trade. He was instrumental in insuring that all voices were heard during these important debates. More than 3 years ago, Ivan became the Commerce Committee's staff director and he has overseen its operations since that time. He has provided the committee Democrats with a thoughtful and pragmatic approach to a remarkable variety of issues. Moreover, he has developed a fine working relationship with Chairman McCain, his staff and the remainder of the Republicans on the committee. On many occasions, these relationships have assisted in forging a bipartisan consensus on a variety of issues that have helped advance good public policy in areas such as telecommunications and broadcast policy, aviation, trucking and rail issues, technology development and environmental and oceans concerns. One particular issue stands out, last year's tobacco debate. Under difficult personal circumstances, Ivan worked closely with both Republicans and Democrats to help craft a compromise that was reported out of the committee by a 19-1 vote. On other occasions, such as product liability or international trade we have been unable to reach bipartisan consensus and have been forced to hash out our differences on the Senate floor. In those instances, I have been blessed to have Ivan's energy, quick thinking, political intuition and wise counsel during the debate. As, I mentioned earlier, I first met Ivan when he was in his early twenties. Both Peatsy and I have seen him grow from a college student to a dedicated and accomplished public servant. We rejoiced when he met and married his lovely wife, Martha Verrill. We celebrated when they had a baby boy, Ethan, and then a second, William. We grieved with him when his father passed away last year. And today we wish him well as he moves onto his next step in joining the internationally recognized law firm of Skadden, Arps. Ivan, thank you for all that you have done for Peatsy and me, the Commerce Committee, and for our country. We will miss you.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. As you know, I initially objected to the movement of this legislation because of my concerns about the manner in which it preempted state law. As introduced, this bill would have nullified any ability of state legislatures to adopt the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, (UETA), in a manner that varied from the provisions of the bill, or in a manner that reserved the right of states to adopt UETA in conformance with their consumer protection laws. When the bill was reported by the Commerce Committee, provisions were included to provide states this flexibility. Since the reporting of the bill, the preemption language has been amended to provide that to avoid adherence to the federal law, a state must adopt UETA ``in the form, or any substantially similar variation'' as provided to the states by the National Conference on Uniform State Law. Do you agree that notwithstanding this change, the purpose and intent of the preemption provisions, either pursuant to the definitions in the bill or otherwise, have not changed? And that the legislation, in its current form, is intended to permit states the flexibility of adopting and enacting UETA in a manner and form that ensures its conformance with state consumer protection laws?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to address another change to the bill since its reporting by the Committee. As you know, the legislation has been amended to incorporate language providing that the bill applies to the business of insurance. This language has the effect of permitting the validation of insurance contracts pursuant to electronic commerce. As you know, state insurance commissioners have expressed reservations about this provision. There is concern that the provision could potentially adversely affect the ability of states to maintain their full regulatory authority over these transactions. Do you agree that insurance companies that enter into agreements via electronic commerce are still required to meet all other state insurance regulatory requirements?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this conference report represents a first step in promoting satellite as a competitor to cable. The conference was presented with two bills which approached a number of the major issues in very different ways. In order to reach an agreement, compromises were made. As a result, I believe consumers are better off with the passage of this bill, and satellite companies are now in a better position to compete with cable companies. A number of provisions in particular will improve and expand satellite service to consumers. This conference report establishes a framework for satellite companies to deliver local network signals into local markets. This allows satellite consumers to receive their local network stations by satellite. The satellite companies have indicated that it is crucial that they are able to deliver local broadcast signals to satellite consumers if they are to compete with cable. I hope going forward, satellite companies embrace this provision and provide local signals to as many markets as possible, including those in rural areas. In addition to these provisions, the conference report directs the FCC to establish a waiver process to allow satellite consumers who cannot receive their broadcast signals over an outdoor antenna, to obtain a waiver and be allowed to get distant network signals. This provision establishes a uniform waiver process and ensures that a consumer's request for a waiver will be addressed within 30 days. The conference report also requires the FCC to improve the accuracy of the methodology used to predict which consumers cannot receive their broadcast signals over the air, and therefore, can obtain distant network signals by satellite. Language also has been placed in the bill to improve the negotiating position of the satellite companies in their negotiations with broadcasters to obtain programming. Hopefully, this provision will help satellite providers to obtain programming from broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms, and ultimately, provide consumers with service at a competitive price. As noted previously, compromises were made. As the bill advanced through committee, I opposed the grandfathering of satellite customers who had been illegally provided distant network signals. At that time, I stated that illegal activities should not be rewarded. Satellite companies should not benefit from a grandfather of illegally provided distant broadcast signals to consumers. Nonetheless, the conference decided to allow satellite consumers who can receive their local network signals of Grade B intensity over an antenna, to continue to receive distant network signals by satellite. It also allowed satellite consumers who receive distant broadcast signals through big (C-band) dishes to continue receiving such service regardless of whether their distant broadcast signals have been cut-off or have been scheduled to be cut-off. In this bill, we have taken a number of steps to provide a better framework for the provision of satellite service. Therefore, I hope satellite companies will comply with the law going forward. I expect the passage of this conference report will result in the delivery of better satellite service to consumers, and ensure that satellite companies can provide consumers with a competitively priced option to cable service.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, two core principles guide our economy, competition and the rule of law. In the absence of competition there is no innovation or consumer choice. For over 100 years the anti-trust laws have served as an indispensable bullwark to ensure that unfettered competition does not result in monopoly power that stifles innovation and denies consumers a choice. So it is curious that a veritable who's who of ``conservative'' politicians and think tanks unleashed a barrage of faxes attacking Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's decision in United States v. Microsoft. Based on a voluminous record, Judge Jackson found that Microsoft had succeeded in ``stifling innovations that would benefit consumers, for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self- interest.'' The factual findings of the District Court held that ``Microsoft will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of its core products.'' According to the District Court, Microsoft ``foreclosed an opportunity for PC makers to make Windows PC systems less confusing and more user-friendly as consumers desired.'' The record included the testimony of numerous high tech entrepreneurs who felt the lash of Microsoft's monopolistic wrath. From IBM's inability to gain support for its OS2/Warp operating system to Apple's inability to effectively compete with Windows to threats to cut off Netscape's ``oxygen supply,'' Microsoft engaged in a pernicious pattern of anticompetitive behavior, openly flaunting the rule of law. Perhaps the most damning of all was the evasive testimony of Microsoft founder William Gates. It is, frankly, a record that is quite embarrassing. But rather than show remorse, Microsoft has embarked on a vendetta to punish the outstanding group of Justice Department lawyers who bested its minions of high-payed lawyers and spin doctors. So, Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to praise the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and its leader Joel Klein. It is well known that I had my doubts about Mr. Klein, but I am pleased to say, and not too proud to admit, that I misjudged him. He is doing an outstanding job. In the long run, failure to promote competition and innovation will undermine our preeminence in the high tech arena.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize my good friend, the Reverend Dr. George Elias Meetze, who was recently named Pastor Emeritus of Incarnation Lutheran Church in Columbia, South Carolina. Dr. Meetze has been serving the South Carolina community for over sixty years. He led the congregation at St. Barnabas Lutheran Church in Charleston, SC from 1934 to 1937, at Grace Lutheran Church in Prosperity, SC from 1937 to 1942 and at Incarnation Lutheran Church from 1942 to 1974. In addition, Dr. George Meetze has been the chaplain of the South Carolina Senate for fifty years. His honors and affiliations are too numerous to list, but include leadership positions within the Lutheran Church and involvement with such organizations as the Salvation Army, The American Cancer Society, and The Rotary Club, which named him a Paul Harris Fellow in 1979. He is, as you would imagine, an active supporter of the Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary in Columbia, SC and Newberry College in Newberry, SC. A fixture in the Columbia, SC community and across the state of South Carolina, Dr. George Meetze knows many people, but is known by even more for his friendliness and genuine interest in every individual he meets. My wife, Peatsy, and I, whom Dr. George Meetze joined in marriage twenty-eight years ago, commend Incarnation Lutheran Church for conferring the title of Pastor Emeritus on Dr. George Meetze and we send our warmest congratulations to George and his family on this happy occasion.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Breaux, in introducing the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act of 1999. I am pleased to co-sponsor this legislative effort to promote conservation and bycatch reduction of small swordfish, billfish, and other highly migratory species. The Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act would create time-area closures for pelagic longline fishing along 160,000 miles of the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico coasts. These closures include the three major spawning areas where a significant portion of juvenile swordfish and billfish bycatch mortality occurs. I am particularly pleased to see that these closures encompass the coastal waters of my home state of South Carolina and particularly a highly productive swordfish spawning and nursery ground, the Charleston Bump. In conjunction with the closures, the bill would reduce fishing capacity by retiring approximately 68 longline vessels from the commercial fishery through a fair and equitable program funded by the federal government and the recreational and commercial fishing industries. In addition, the Act would establish a research program, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service, to study longline gear and potential gear improvements. All too frequently we are forced to make fisheries management decisions with too little information; these research provisions will provide data crucial for management of highly migratory species. The current proposal results from arduous work and negotiation among commercial and recreational fishing groups including the Coastal Conservation Association, the American Sportsfishing Association, the Billfish Foundation, and the Blue Water Fisherman's Association. I commend these groups for their cooperation in developing this truly constructive conservation plan based on extensive analyses of the best available science. I also approve of their effort to make this bill consistent with the principles governing capacity reduction established in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The introduction of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act of 1999 couldn't come at a better time. Many of the highly migratory species, including North Atlantic swordfish, are currently overfished. The National Marine Fisheries Service reports that billfish and some shark and tuna species are at all-time lows in abundance as a result of longline fishing bycatch and widespread disregard for international rules by commercial fishermen of other nations. The international management body for highly migratory species, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), recently expressed concern about the high catches and discards of small swordfish and emphasized that future gains in yield could accrue if fishing mortality on small fish could be reduced. Further, ICCAT encouraged member nations to consider alternative methods such as time/ area closures to aid rebuilding of highly migratory stocks. I commend Senator Breaux for attempting to establish such areas domestically, and hope that we can serve as a model for other nations. While this legislation can result in important conservation achievements, we must also employ other means to protect and rebuild our highly migratory species such as swordfish. Next week, ICCAT will convene in Rio de Janero, Brazil to determine new international management measures for Atlantic swordfish. The United States must supplement Senator Breaux's proposal by securing an agreement at ICCAT that will reduce catches by all member nations sufficient to allow the North Atlantic swordfish population to recover within ten years or less--a goal that scientists tell us can only be achieved if we count discarded dead swordfish against the catch quotas. In addition, I am certain that Senator Breaux's effort to reduce bycatch and establish time-area closures will serve as a powerful example to the international community of a responsible method for sustaining and restoring highly migratory species. I applaud my colleague and the other architects of this ambitious conservation effort and look forward to working with Senator Breaux and other cosponsors to ensure that this legislation is part of an effective national plan that ensures recovery of the North Atlantic swordfish stock within 10 years in a manner consistent with the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Breaux, in introducing the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act of 1999. I am pleased to co-sponsor this legislative effort to promote conservation and bycatch reduction of small swordfish, billfish, and other highly migratory species. The Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act would create time-area closures for pelagic longline fishing along 160,000 miles of the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico coasts. These closures include the three major spawning areas where a significant portion of juvenile swordfish and billfish bycatch mortality occurs. I am particularly pleased to see that these closures encompass the coastal waters of my home state of South Carolina and particularly a highly productive swordfish spawning and nursery ground, the Charleston Bump. In conjunction with the closures, the bill would reduce fishing capacity by retiring approximately 68 longline vessels from the commercial fishery through a fair and equitable program funded by the federal government and the recreational and commercial fishing industries. In addition, the Act would establish a research program, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service, to study longline gear and potential gear improvements. All too frequently we are forced to make fisheries management decisions with too little information; these research provisions will provide data crucial for management of highly migratory species. The current proposal results from arduous work and negotiation among commercial and recreational fishing groups including the Coastal Conservation Association, the American Sportsfishing Association, the Billfish Foundation, and the Blue Water Fisherman's Association. I commend these groups for their cooperation in developing this truly constructive conservation plan based on extensive analyses of the best available science. I also approve of their effort to make this bill consistent with the principles governing capacity reduction established in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The introduction of the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act of 1999 couldn't come at a better time. Many of the highly migratory species, including North Atlantic swordfish, are currently overfished. The National Marine Fisheries Service reports that billfish and some shark and tuna species are at all-time lows in abundance as a result of longline fishing bycatch and widespread disregard for international rules by commercial fishermen of other nations. The international management body for highly migratory species, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), recently expressed concern about the high catches and discards of small swordfish and emphasized that future gains in yield could accrue if fishing mortality on small fish could be reduced. Further, ICCAT encouraged member nations to consider alternative methods such as time/ area closures to aid rebuilding of highly migratory stocks. I commend Senator Breaux for attempting to establish such areas domestically, and hope that we can serve as a model for other nations. While this legislation can result in important conservation achievements, we must also employ other means to protect and rebuild our highly migratory species such as swordfish. Next week, ICCAT will convene in Rio de Janero, Brazil to determine new international management measures for Atlantic swordfish. The United States must supplement Senator Breaux's proposal by securing an agreement at ICCAT that will reduce catches by all member nations sufficient to allow the North Atlantic swordfish population to recover within ten years or less--a goal that scientists tell us can only be achieved if we count discarded dead swordfish against the catch quotas. In addition, I am certain that Senator Breaux's effort to reduce bycatch and establish time-area closures will serve as a powerful example to the international community of a responsible method for sustaining and restoring highly migratory species. I applaud my colleague and the other architects of this ambitious conservation effort and look forward to working with Senator Breaux and other cosponsors to ensure that this legislation is part of an effective national plan that ensures recovery of the North Atlantic swordfish stock within 10 years in a manner consistent with the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I rise today to pay tribute to Richard P. Augulis on the occasion of his retirement as director of the National Weather Service Central Region. In Mr. Augulis' 35 years with the National Weather Service, including 13 years as director of the 14-state Central Region, he has held public safety paramount, whether as a forecaster or as a manager. He has now retired to Las Vegas, Nevada where he is able to enjoy this new venture with members of his family. Mr. Augulis joined the National Weather Service in August 1961 as a Weather Bureau Student Trainee at WBAS Midway Airport while attending St. Louis University. He earned his Bachelor of Science in Meteorology in 1963 and added a Masters Degree in 1967. He distinguished himself in a variety of forecasting and management positions--in Salt Lake City; Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska; Garden City, New York; and, finally, Kansas City. Beginning in 1974, as Meteorologist in Charge of the new Fairbanks Weather Forecast Office, Mr. Augulis presided over a staff that operated service programs during the exciting and challenging times of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline construction. Mr. Augulis' leadership was also invaluable to employees during the mid-1970s when the National Weather Service implemented the Automation of Field Operations (AFOS) communications network, making a breakthrough transition from teletype to computers. Mr. Augulis' last decade with the National Weather Service included the largest modernization and reorganization ever undertaken by the agency. He helped guide his region through the introduction and implementation of state-of-the-art Doppler radar, computer-enhanced weather modeling and forecasting, and restructuring from more than 300 offices of varying sizes and capabilities to an efficient network of 123 21st Century Weather Forecast Offices across the United States. Mr. Augulis has served proudly as an employee and a manager of the National Weather Service. He is a distinguished executive branch employee whose accomplishments reflect credit on himself, the National Weather Service and our nation. On this occasion, I am honored to join his family, friends and colleagues as we recognize Richard P. Augulis on his retirement from the National Weather Service.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Linda J. Morgan. Today we are considering the nomination of Linda Morgan to be reappointed as the chairman of the Surface Transportation Board. I am proud to say that I have known Chairman Morgan for many years. Although we may not always agree, I have a great deal of respect for her and know that two qualities she possesses in abundance are fairness and integrity. Those qualities, coupled with her commitment to public service, make her an outstanding chairman. Before I discuss Chairman Morgan's abilities and accomplishments, I would like to comment briefly on the agreement reached between railroad management and labor this week on the cram down issue. As many of you know, the carriers and their employees have been working on the terms of an agreement which would create new rules pertaining to the abrogation of collective bargaining agreements. Yesterday, the parties agreed to a moratorium on the filing of section 4 notices while the negotiations take place to establish new rules. I am pleased that the parties were able to reach a compromise on this important issue and urge the STB to look favorably on this agreement. In addition, I expect to address this issue legislatively next year when we take up the STB reauthorization bill. As many of you know, Linda Morgan served as counsel for the Surface Transportation Subcommittee for 8 years and then as general counsel for the full Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for seven years. During that time I found Linda Morgan to be one of the most intelligent and thorough professionals that I have worked with. She is smart and she cares about the issues--I know that she is committed to serving the public in her capacity as the chairman of the Surface Transportation Board. Linda Morgan has served as chairman of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) since it was created in 1996. Prior to that, she served as chairman of the ICC. In 1996 she was responsible for implementing the changes that Congress envisioned in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. She pared down the ICC and established a new, more streamlined agency in its place, the STB. Chairman Morgan is to be commended for her achievements and commitment to the mission of the STB during her first term. The STB operates with only 135 people, less than half the staff of it predecessor, but it is charged with regulating the entire railroad industry. Among her accomplishments, Chairman Morgan has facilitated creating a more efficient process for resolving rate disputes between shippers and carriers. Additionally, under her leadership, she has helped the private sector come to agreements on short line access and agricultural services arbitration which have benefited the entire transportation industry. Chairman Morgan has done an outstanding job moving the agency through several different places. She successfully transitioned the agency from the ICC to the STB. She has seen the railroad industry through three very large merger transactions. She helped resolve the service issues in the west. And last year she ended the practice of using product and geographic competition in determining appropriate rates for shippers. Linda Morgan has done a lot of heavy lifting during her tenure as chairman of the STB. She has my full confidence and I support her nomination.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished managers of the bill offered the $8 billion figure in sales and some 121,000 jobs. The truth is, we know from the Labor Department statistics that we have lost 420,000 textile jobs nationwide and some 31,200 textile jobs in South Carolina alone. They said NAFTA was going to create 200,000 jobs. They claim today it is 121,000. In Mexico itself, it was going to create 200,000 jobs. We know textiles alone lost 420,000, and it is undisputed that 31,200 jobs were lost in the State of South Carolina. I ask unanimous consent to print two articles with respect to the economy and how it has worked in Mexico, one from the Wall Street Journal and the other from the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I quote from the article: . . . they estimate the computing and communications- technology sector at a more modest 5% of the GDP --up from 2.8% in 1990. . . . The value added of Internet sales--i.e., its contribution to the gross domestic product--would be much less, probably little more than 1% of the gross domestic product. Mr. President, another popularly quoted figure is that business spending on information technology has risen from 10 percent of a firm's total capital, equipment and investment in 1980 to 60 percent today. Again, this is based on constant dollar figures. And it hugely exaggerates the true increase. In terms of current dollars . . . Goldman Sachs calculate that business investments in computers accounts for 35% of total capital spending, not 60%. And even this exaggerates the importance of [information technology] because much of the money goes to replace equipment which becomes obsolete ever more quickly. The share of [information technology] in additional ``net'' investment is much smaller. Computers still account for only 2% of America's total net capital stock. I want to dwell on this for a moment, for the main and simple reason that this really is what is at issue and why the Senator from South Carolina takes the floor. It is just not textiles. Textiles is on its way out. And by another headline I saw in the New York Times, on the right- hand upper column of the front page this morning, President Clinton is getting together with the People's Republic of China to admit them to the World Trade Organization. You can pass the CBI, the sub-Sahara, the NAFTA there, there, and there yonder, and pull it all around, but once that is done, once China gets into the World Trade Organization and starts with its transshipments and its appeals, it controls the general assembly. We had a resolution about 4 years ago to have hearings on human rights within the People's Republic of China. That crowd went back down into Africa and Australia and around and changed the vote, and they never had the hearing. So I am telling you, we really are going to be a minority in the World Trade Organization. They can change around your environmental protections, your labor protections, your high standard of living, and everything else. And the CBI and sub-Sahara, and everything else that we think we are doing something to help, we are going to China, I can tell you that right now with the front page article about President Clinton. So we know where we are headed with respect to that. But my friend, Eamonn Fingleton, has written a book, ``In Praise of Hard Industries.'' Obviously, I can't include the book in the Record at this particular time. But I refer to its comparisons where the Wall Street Journal time and time again has come out again and again with certain misstatements. In 1996, when everyone from the Wall Street Journal to the Christian Science Monitor was dismissing the Japanese economy as sluggish or stagnant or even mired in a deep slump, in fact Japan's growth rate that year of 3.9 percent was the best of any major economy and was significantly superior to the rate of 2.8 percent recorded in the booming United States. . . . Although experts like the Economist's editor in chief . . . predicted a decade ago that Japan's savings rate would plunge in the 1990s, the truth is that at last count Japan was producing $708 billion of new savings a year--or nearly 60 percent more than America's total of $443 billion . . . Japan has now decisively surpassed the United States as the world's main source of capital . . . Japan's net external assets jumped from $294 billion to $891 billion in the first seven years of the 1990s. By contrast, America's net external liabilities ballooned from $71 billion to $831 billion. With these things going on, you begin to worry where you are headed with the particular trade bill. Again, instead of doubling the volume of steel imports since 1983, the United States remains by far the largest importer. So we are importing the steel. We are not having a savings rate. According to the Financial Times article that was printed in the Record the other day: Fears of a slide in the U.S. dollar has haunted global currency markets for several months now. The dollar was granted a reprieve last week following better than expected August trade figures. But many observers believe it is only a matter of time before the dollar succumbs to mounting trade imbalances. Quoting from the book I previously mentioned: In the 1960s---- Since the distinguished Senator from New York went back 65 years-- In the 1960s President John F. Kennedy felt so strongly about this that he ranked dollar devaluation alongside a nuclear war as the two things he feared most. There you go. Here we have it. We have a whole book written on it. Why, yes, it provides jobs. The information technology society or globalization, as they want to call it, the engine of our great economic recovery in the United States, our wonderful world leadership, it provides jobs for the best, the top 5 percent of the population. You have to be highly intelligent and everything else; like I have mentioned the 22,000 employees at Microsoft. All 22,000 are millionaires. More power to them. But that does not give you any exports, that does not give you any growth. That does not give you any strength of manufacturing in the industrial economy. That is where we are hollowing it out. That is why we cannot afford it. I would love to help the Caribbean Basin. I would love to help the sub-Sahara. But time and again, we have given over and over and over again with respect to--I remember back in the Philippines we had given there. We had other particular initiatives whereby we always sacrificed at the textile desk. I do not have it with me right now, but I have it down where we have given to Turkey. We gave to Egypt in Desert Storm. We have just eliminated, in the Multifiber Arrangement, over a 10-year period--now we are in the 5th year--all textile tariffs and everything else of that kind. So we do not have any protectionism about which to really talk. We have important jobs. The textile jobs, compared to those retail jobs--the average textile wage is $11 an hour. With benefits, it increases that. Those are good jobs that we are trying to hold onto-- the jobs of middle America, which is the strength of the democratic society. Let me go right back to the particular editorial. This is how silly they can get. I will quote from the editorial. This editorial is from the Wall Street Journal. So I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the editorial of this morning from the Wall Street Journal. The title of the editorial is ``The Old Isolationists.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this amendment is nothing more than the previous amendment on side agreements on labor. This one would require the side agreements with respect to the environment. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows I know the feeling of strength out on the west coast for the environment. I have traveled up there, for example, in Puget Sound and have had the hearings with Dixie Lee Ray when she was the oceanographer, John Linberg, and all the rest. I come back to the statement by my distinguished ranking member quoted in the Wall Street Journal this morning----

Mr. HOLLINGS. As quoted in the morning Wall Street Journal, the distinguished Senator Moynihan of New York said: We were planning to spend a few days in Seattle, just meeting people. But if you could not get this bill passed, they would not have any credibility. I don't want to show my face. I know in general the Democrats are considered prolabor and the Republicans are considered generally as antilabor. But with respect to the environment it has been bipartisan. There was no stronger protector of the environment than our late friend, John Chafee of Rhode Island. He led the way for Republicans and Democrats. I would not want to show my face in Seattle, having voted that you could not even sit down, talk, and negotiate something on the environment, the very same provisions that the chairman of the Finance Committee required in the NAFTA agreement. It is in the NAFTA agreement. I am only saying, since we are going to extend NAFTA to the CBI, let's put the same requirements there with consideration for the environment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware said this amendment would discourage investments. The very same amendment was included at his behest in the Finance Committee on NAFTA. It has not discouraged investment whatever in Mexico. On the contrary, the Koreans, the Chinese, Taiwanese, the Americans, everyone is investing like gangbusters down in Mexico. That is what they talk about, the success of NAFTA. So this is worded to include the language exactly as they have included it in the NAFTA agreement. Could it be on labor rights that this body wants to put a stamp of approval on a situation such as the example I gave of a 13- year-old young girl working 100 hours at 13 cents an hour until 3 in the morning? Do we want that kind of thing going on? I am sure we do not want to put the stamp of approval on the threats they will be killed when they ask for certain labor considerations down in Honduras. I went through all of those particular examples. We do not want to invest in scab labor. What we want to invest in is an opportunity and an improved lot with the Caribbean Basin Initiative here. So it is, the amendment should not be tabled. It is in force, working with respect to NAFTA. There is no reason why it cannot work in this particular place.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, by this vote we will determine whether we are for foreign aid or foreign trade. The truth is that the Marshall Plan in foreign aid is really a wonderful thing. We have defeated communism with capitalism. It has worked. But now after 50 years, with running deficits in excess of $100 billion for some 20 years, we are just infusing more money into the economy than we are willing to take in. There was the deficit of $127 billion here just at the end of September for the year 1999; otherwise, running a deficit in the balance of trade of $300 billion; then with our current account deficit totaling $726 billion in the last 7 years and our net external assets really in the liabilities over the last 7 years from $71 billion to $831 billion. We are going out of business. It would be a wonderful thing. But let's have some reciprocity. All we are saying is, when we make an agreement, we take some of these particular regulations affecting, for example, textiles--there is a whole book of them here--and if we lower ours, let them lower theirs. Cordell Hull, 65 years ago, with the reciprocal trade agreements of 1934, is what got the country going again industrially, and that is what will get it going again if we obey the reciprocity that we included in NAFTA. All I am trying to do, if we are going to extend NAFTA, let's have the same reciprocity we had in NAFTA in these particular CBI agreements.