Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this charade has gone far enough. The economy gives indications of overheating causing the Federal Reserve to increase interest rates, and now both the President and the Congress are in a foot race to cut taxes to make sure the economy catches fire. Rather than a surplus, the President's OMB Mid-Session Review on page 42 projects an increase in the debt each year for five years, and on page 43, by computation, an increase in the debt of $1.883.4 trillion over fifteen years. Some suggest cutting spending; others downsizing the government. The Democrats did both in 1993 and lost the Congress in 1994. Now, neither Republicans nor Democrats will vote to make substantial cuts and what's really needed is a tax increase. When Lyndon Johnson last balanced the budget the national debt was less than $1 trillion and interest costs of $16 billion. Now, CBO projects a deficit this year of $5.6 trillion with interest costs of $356 billion. We have increased spending since President Johnson's time $340 billion each year for nothing. A fiscal cancer. To excise this fiscal cancer, to put government on a pay-as-you-go basis, spending cuts and a tax increase will be necessary. A value added tax of 5 percent dedicated to eliminating the debt and stabilizing Social Security is in order. It would promote a very much needed paradigm of saving. More than that, it would eliminate a substantial disadvantage in international trade. The deficit in the balance of trade nears $300 billion this year. Every industrial country except the United States has a VAT which is rebated at the port of departure. Articles produced in Europe enter the United States market with a 15 percent rebated advantage, and from Korea 25 percent. All this talk of surpluses and tax cuts misleads the American public. What we really should be doing in good times is paying down the National Debt. This bill that I am introducing today will do the trick.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to insure the safe transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat) via the United States Postal Service and its contract carriers. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 1990, P.L. 103-311, specifically exempted the U.S. Postal Service from Department of Transportation (DOT) hazmat enforcement. Although they are exempt from DOT hazmat enforcement, the U.S. Postal Service self- governs hazardous materials transportation through internal regulations and inspections. The National Transportation Safety Board has made numerous recommendations over the years to subject the U.S. Postal Service to DOT inspections and increased enforcement efforts. In addition, they have also recommended that the Postal Service be subject to enforcement obligations similar to those observed by other package and express mail operations. Due to the fact that only a small percentage of mail is transported exclusively by the U.S. Postal Service and most of it is contracted out to other carriers, it makes sense that all mail and package transporters be subject to the same DOT regulations and inspections. We all remember the horrifying crash of ValuJet Airlines, flight 592, into the Everglades in May of 1996. Although the cause of the ValuJet accident was not attributed to the U.S. Postal Service, the situation in which it occurred demonstrated the importance of accurate labeling in the transportation of hazardous materials. Following the ValuJet accident, the NTSB made multiple recommendations to the U.S. Postal Service about increased safety in the transport of hazmat. However, in the year following the ValuJet incident there were thirteen additional hazardous materials incidents that occurred when U.S. mail was transported via air. There should be a better safety net for the public and the employees who are charged with the safe transport of the packages, mail and express items. Similarly, the frightening success of the Unabomber throughout the 1980's and 1990's underscores the need for tougher controls over hazardous materials sent via the U.S. Postal Service. Ted Kaczynski repeatedly sent explosive devices in packages through the mail system resulting in three deaths and 29 injuries. These packages, which weighed on average between five and ten pounds, were never inspected for hazardous contents. Largely in response to the Unabomber, the U.S. Postal Service implemented new requirements addressing package mail, however if a hazmat package is not identified at the source, it is important that the Department of Transportation hazmat inspectors have the authority to inspect packages carried by surface and air carriers. These accidents clearly demonstrate that the shipment of undeclared hazardous materials is a serious problem that needs more attention. While the U.S. Postal Service has worked hard to train its employees to recognize hazmat shipments, much of the transportation of postal material is done via contract carriers who are not U.S. Postal Service employees. Efforts to address this issue have been hindered by the exclusion of DOT inspectors from regulating hazardous materials shipped via the U.S. Postal Service. Mr. President, I believe that the U.S. Postal Service and the DOT hazmat inspectors are faced with an enormous task--keeping our mail and our transportation systems safe. My bill would provide for increased authority in hazmat inspections by authorizing DOT inspectors to work in tandem with U.S. Postal Inspectors. The safety of our transportation system is dependent on the safety of the cargo it is carrying--all hazmat packages should be adequately inspected and if found unsafe, they should be treated appropriately, expeditiously and equally. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to insure the safe transportation of hazardous materials (hazmat) via the United States Postal Service and its contract carriers. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 1990, P.L. 103-311, specifically exempted the U.S. Postal Service from Department of Transportation (DOT) hazmat enforcement. Although they are exempt from DOT hazmat enforcement, the U.S. Postal Service self- governs hazardous materials transportation through internal regulations and inspections. The National Transportation Safety Board has made numerous recommendations over the years to subject the U.S. Postal Service to DOT inspections and increased enforcement efforts. In addition, they have also recommended that the Postal Service be subject to enforcement obligations similar to those observed by other package and express mail operations. Due to the fact that only a small percentage of mail is transported exclusively by the U.S. Postal Service and most of it is contracted out to other carriers, it makes sense that all mail and package transporters be subject to the same DOT regulations and inspections. We all remember the horrifying crash of ValuJet Airlines, flight 592, into the Everglades in May of 1996. Although the cause of the ValuJet accident was not attributed to the U.S. Postal Service, the situation in which it occurred demonstrated the importance of accurate labeling in the transportation of hazardous materials. Following the ValuJet accident, the NTSB made multiple recommendations to the U.S. Postal Service about increased safety in the transport of hazmat. However, in the year following the ValuJet incident there were thirteen additional hazardous materials incidents that occurred when U.S. mail was transported via air. There should be a better safety net for the public and the employees who are charged with the safe transport of the packages, mail and express items. Similarly, the frightening success of the Unabomber throughout the 1980's and 1990's underscores the need for tougher controls over hazardous materials sent via the U.S. Postal Service. Ted Kaczynski repeatedly sent explosive devices in packages through the mail system resulting in three deaths and 29 injuries. These packages, which weighed on average between five and ten pounds, were never inspected for hazardous contents. Largely in response to the Unabomber, the U.S. Postal Service implemented new requirements addressing package mail, however if a hazmat package is not identified at the source, it is important that the Department of Transportation hazmat inspectors have the authority to inspect packages carried by surface and air carriers. These accidents clearly demonstrate that the shipment of undeclared hazardous materials is a serious problem that needs more attention. While the U.S. Postal Service has worked hard to train its employees to recognize hazmat shipments, much of the transportation of postal material is done via contract carriers who are not U.S. Postal Service employees. Efforts to address this issue have been hindered by the exclusion of DOT inspectors from regulating hazardous materials shipped via the U.S. Postal Service. Mr. President, I believe that the U.S. Postal Service and the DOT hazmat inspectors are faced with an enormous task--keeping our mail and our transportation systems safe. My bill would provide for increased authority in hazmat inspections by authorizing DOT inspectors to work in tandem with U.S. Postal Inspectors. The safety of our transportation system is dependent on the safety of the cargo it is carrying--all hazmat packages should be adequately inspected and if found unsafe, they should be treated appropriately, expeditiously and equally. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. You think it is not timely on money? Here at 2 o'clock this afternoon an article was printed regarding Governor Bush. I guess have to be more respectful. He is liable to be President. It reads, Governor Bush--``At a breakfast this morning Bush gets big support from Silicon Valley.'' He got all the executives out there. He just pledges all these things, I am telling you right now, way better than the distinguished chairman. And the distinguished chairman is pretty good. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield sufficient time as may be necessary under the time I am allotted under the agreement. Mr. President, a notable author once stated that ``decades surrounding a new millennium are periods of severe disruptions and cultural transformations.'' In the context of American politics, it appears that this prophecy is coming to fruition even before the 21st century officially arrives. From the manner in which this legislation has been considered, and unfortunately, from its ultimate passage, it appears that this country is embarking upon a serious transformation of America's constitutionalism. For 200 years, we have honored a system of federalism that recognized the appropriate balance between States and the Federal Government concerning the administration of civil law. Civil disputes unrelated to constitutional claims were considered to be reserved to the states and local citizens. But this cherished notion of states' rights no longer seems to be the case. Now, upon the idea of promoting industrialism, and more specifically, the so-called growth of technology, it appears that federalism, as well as the constitutional rights of American citizens, are becoming not only dishonored, but for sale to the highest bidder. There are some who will support this legislation today upon the grounds that this is a bill limited in scope. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation includes some of the broadest limitations ever imposed on consumers' civil remedies, including severe restrictions on the recovery of economic losses and the ability to pursue class action suits. The majority's claims about the recovery of economic losses greatly exceed the degree to which economic losses will be recoverable under the bill. In reality, the legislation will forbid the recovery of economic losses in almost every situation. The conference majority contends that the class action provision has been made more pro-plaintiff because of the change made to the monetary requirement--from $1 million to $10 million--and the change made to the class size requirement, which is now 100 members. However, the conference majority failed to highlight the decision by the conference committee to add a provision that allows any class action suit to be removed to federal court in the event the suit includes a claim for punitive damages. The addition of this provision has expanded the federalization of class actions suits well beyond the provision in the original bill. The conference report states that my provision on consumer credit protection has been revised to reflect the true intent of the provision, which was to prevent consumers from losing their mortgages because of Y2K failures. However, the purpose of the provision was not to singularly protect mortgages, but to protect consumers against adverse actions in relation to all debt-related transactions, including automobile loans and credit card obligations. I know that many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle will vote for final passage because of the President's decision to sign this bill. I am most disappointed in the President's decision. When the President announced and carried out his veto of the products liability bill three years ago, I applauded. He states then that there was no justification for broad restrictions on punitive damages, joint and several liability, and broad preemption of State law. He reiterated those concerns in several statements on this bill. Yet, he announces his intention to sign the bill. In fact, his staff says he'll sign the legislation, even though it doesn't reflect the actual agreement between the White House and conference members. I assure my colleagues that if we remain on this course, the constitutional and moral soul of this Nation will soon perish. This ideology of short term gain, and success at all costs, will surely work to our detriment. Consideration of this bill reminds me of a quote by Horace Rumpole, when he said: We went to all that trouble with King John to get trial by our peers, and now a lot of lawyers with the minds of business consultants want to abolish juries. Mr. President, when I hear the expression by my distinguished chairman about a victory for the Nation and such nonsense from the distinguished Senator from Oregon about the consumers not getting the shaft--that is exactly what they are getting. That is exactly what is happening. We tried our best to protect the consumers. You name the consumer organization in America--Public Citizen, Consumers Union--they are all still opposed to this conference report. I stand here with a letter which the American Bar Association recently wrote: The American Bar Association opposes enactment of H.R. 775 in either the form that passed the Senate on June 15, 1999 or the form that passed the House of Representatives on May 12, 1999. . .The American Bar Association believes that the rights of the States should not be trampled in the rush to enact legislation to address concerns about Y2K. Traditionally, legal principles governing both tort and contract action have been the province of the States, not the Federal Government. The legal issues likely to be presented by the Year 2000 problem are not unique. I ask unanimous consent the letter from the American Bar Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have some demands on this side of the aisle and some obligations. I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again I do not yield from the statement made that this has been one shabby charade. I intended to, and did, take the President to task, and I do so. You don't send five veto messages and then come with a sorry bill, a worse compromise. It is obvious. You can look at it on the face of it. It did not take care of the consumers. Senator Leahy tried to. It was what we adopted in the Congress last year, in the securities bill, in the other measure; we always take care of the consumers. But here the one group penalized, sidelined, damaged, if you please, are the consumers of America. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from Public Citizen, opposing the bill, opposing this report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We go to what we knew. They made the agreement, it was all signed up, and after the agreement was sent over to the White House, it was not what they agreed to even then. I read: The agreed-upon changes were translated into legislative language extremely narrowly, threatening the effectiveness of the negotiating protections. Nonetheless, we have concluded that, with these changes . . . [we are going to sign the bill]. They were going to sign a bill. They were going to get a bill for the Vice President. We have to get this Silicon money. And they ought to be taken to task for this kind of performance here. We know what this is about. Like I say, no State, no Governor, no Attorney General, no legislature supports this effort. Let say that my distinguished friend from Connecticut is very effective. He says: What a radical idea when we have a unique problem. No, not at all. I am reading from the American Bar Association, all the lawyers: Traditionally, legal principles governing both tort and contract actions have been the province of the States. Not the Federal Government. We all know that. The legal issues likely to be presented by the year 2000 problem are not unique. We know that. He said it is not unique, it is not a radical idea, it is not a radical idea to say what is wrong, specify in your complaint what is wrong. When the computer breaks down, I don't know what is wrong. Who does? It is like in the Food and Drug Administration, when there is bad food we have good product liability; we have a Food and Drug Administration. These products they have within their own purview, the proprietary information on the manufacturer, so if there is a product that breaks down, they know where it is. We cannot find it ordinarily. But here, they really sidelined middle America, consumers and the poor small businessman. They said that is a radical idea. It is a radical idea. It goes against the entire thrust of the safety principles we experience here in America. We have a safe society. You can depend on the food. You can depend on the products. The European Union is now following strict liability and joint and several liability that we have here in America. A radical idea to run to the courthouse? We are not running to the courthouse. It is a litigious society, but we will show tort claims are down and business suing business is up; domestic cases, rights cases for this right, that wrong; environment and otherwise, are up. But tort liability cases are down. This here really legalizes torts, it legalizes negligence, it legalizes fraud, all in the name of something that happens 6 months from now when, by their own measure they say we ought to have 90 days to fix it. Unreasonable? The Senator from California, she came and said: Let's get rid of all the lawyers, just use those 90 days to require the manufacturer to fix it; that's all we need. We need to get back in business. We do not need a rush to the courthouse. Rush to the courthouse? That implies you are going to get a rush judgment. Try to get 12 jurors to agree on anything today. You cannot get 12 Senators. They surely have gotten something very easily. Surely, it was not unreasonable to at least say you have to fix the problem, in return for expansive restrictions on plaintiffs' rights. Instead, they say you have to find out what is wrong and specify it before they do anything. Come on. They say that is in behalf of the consumers of America? And that is a good measure and it is a victory for America? No, Mr. President; this is a sad day when the moneys in campaigns are not just taken to get elected, are not taken just to buy the office, but when they buy the principles in order to cater to a crowd to pass this kind of legislation. How much time remains?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is the letter we received from the distinguished executive assistant, Mr. John Podesta. I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Here is the same: ``Congress Chasing Campaign Donors Early and Often'' about Y2K. That is from the New York Times, dated June 14. I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Certainly everybody wants money. I want money. You want money. Republicans want money. Democrats want money. The White House is going crazy after money. Heavens above, everybody knows everybody wants money. If you think this is just a spurious comment, let's go back. Here it is: ``GOP Vies for Backing of High-Tech Leaders. Party Aims to Exploit Y2K Vote. . .'' That is from the Washington Post, dated June 13. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield such time as necessary to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. HOLLINGS. So the record is made with respect to money. Ordinarily, we have the rule--I want to be within the Senate rules of the dignity of the body. But we have to get to the reality. No one is asking for this except those in the money chase. And, yes, it is bipartisan. There isn't any question about that. But this is a shabby performance. It is a sad day in the history of the Senate. Now what really occurred when we went into that conference is that the House receded to the Senate except for a minor amendment. We voted on it. Then they started negotiating on the fix, so as to ensure everybody was on board. They knew they were going to get a bill. The Senator from Connecticut then made the call to the President after midnight. I thought the only person who could get the President after midnight was Monica. The White House sent five veto letters. Yet, the President plans to sign the bill, notwithstanding. How emblematic of this administration. We fought like tigers to get this economy going with the 1993 budget. We cut spending. We raised taxes. We did away with 300,000 Federal employees. We got the economy going even though we could not get a single vote on the other side. Then later, of course, the President joined the other side, went down and threw all of his friends in Congress overboard saying we taxed them too much. Then we had GATT. Then we had the NAFTA with Mexico, and he threw his labor friends overboard. Of course, that has been an abomination. You cannot get to reality. They said it was going to increase trade. We went from a $5 billion-plus to a $20 billion-minus deficit. That was going to pay the Mexican worker better. He is taking home 20 percent less pay. It was going to solve the immigration problem. It is worse. It was going to solve the drug problem. They have a narcodemocracy down there. But the President threw that crowd overboard. Now he throws overboard the consumers, middle America, after five veto messages on a much worse bill. The Senator from Vermont is right on target. There isn't any question, when they put out this sheet here--even from my side--in the policy committee meeting there at lunch: How the conference report improves on the Senate-passed bill proportionate liability, even though they rejected Senator Kerry's proposal to place the burden on the defendant. They put the burden on the plaintiff. Individual consumers supposedly are carved out of proportionate liability, that is if they are not part of a class. If by chance they are part of a class, their suit is automatically removable to federal court, in the event the claim seeks punitive damages. The President said he would never federalize class actions. They claim the bill preserves the authority of states to void contracts. But I can list a number of contracts that would be illegal under State law but would be enforceable under the conference-reported bill. So contracts which were entered into on a fraudulent or unconstitutional basis would still be enforced. I will never forget the distinguished Senator from North Carolina; he tried to instruct the Senator from Oregon on economic damages. I will give you the case. The client comes in. I am an old-time lawyer, and I represent clients. You have to tell them the truth. The poor client comes in and says: Hollings, I've got a $10,000 computer I bought last year, and now it's after January the first, and it has crashed. It is not Y2K compliant. They told me it was going to last for 10 years. I want you to bring my case. I said: Wait a minute. They have to understand you have 90 days to wait around even though there is no duty to fix. The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, offered an amendment to require a free fix-- that was in response to the Senator from Oregon's lament about fix the problem, fix the problem, just fix the problem. Well, that is exactly what were attempting to do. We said: Let's get rid of the lawyers. We will fix the problem. Yet, they would not accept that in the conference report. So I say to the prospective client: In that 90 days nothing is going to happen. Then I have to investigate in great detail because on proportionate liability I do not want to find that the parquet from Hewlett-Packard was made in India and thus discover that I should have gone to New Delhi instead of Hartford to bring this case. I have to then file the pleadings. I have to thereupon get in with the interrogatories, attend all the discoveries because that is the billable-hour crowd. You do not have money for billable hours obviously. This is middle America. That is how they get their day in court. So I will attend the interrogatories. I will conduct the trial, and I will handle the appeal. By that time, you will owe me over $10,000. Now do you really want me to bring this case, considering you can't get any economic loss? I know you said you had to let two of your employees go because you could not pay them during all this time that it has been down. I know you have a loss of business. I know you have lost your reputation and everything else of that kind. But there is no economic loss. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina is the best in the business. He will elaborate on that particular point. But that, more or less, gets rid of the lawyers. There never has been anything really for Y2K cases for attorneys. But to come in here now and say it does that, it is just shocking that we have just done away with middle America. The civil justice system has been permanently damaged. The very system that supports our Democratic society and consumers. That is why I stand here, for the consumers of America, for middle America, for those who cannot employ a trial attorney. I go right to that White House and why they changed, because the best story that came out was in the New York Times. I think it is dated just yesterday, June 30. It has this statement in here, that the Vice President, as he begins his campaign for the Presidency, was eager to rid himself of the ``taint'' of financial support from trial lawyers. No. 1, try to get some money out of that trial lawyer crowd, hard money. It is limited to $1,000. Soft money, let's go to Silicon Valley. There is Bush. He is there this morning, the Governor. This is the soft money bill. That crowd, he has $36 million. He has more than Gore, the Vice President, the President, and Bill Bradley all put together. One fellow has it. He can get that money. They know where to get soft money. I can't get much hard money out of that trial lawyer crowd. I want more from them, I want them to know. I have publicly stated that on the floor. But they don't have soft money. But the ``taint'' is the one I take exception to, because I am proud to be associated with trial lawyers. They are in there, down in the pits, on the front lines protecting middle America. All I hear in this Congress is about middle America--taxes, taxes, taxes. How about rights, rights, rights? They don't have the money for billable hours. A crowd such as we have up here in this Washington group, all the lobbyists, I am glad they put that list--is that the billable hour list the distinguished chairman just handed in for the record? So with the billable hour list, sure, they are lazy. They don't try cases. They continue cases. They go to the golf course. The clock runs and they send the bills. But you have to produce if you are a trial lawyer or you don't get anything. You take on all the expenses. This is a system that has worked for over 200 years at the State level. All the State authorities now are opposed to this Federal adulteration, but they are talking about how they are looking out for consumers and a victory for America and those kind of things. I am particularly shocked at my Republican chairman who has led the fight on campaign finance reform. I worked with him. I have a bill in for a constitutional amendment to try to legalize, if you please, the 1974 act before it was made unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. In one line: The Congress of the United States is hereby empowered to regulate or control spending in Federal elections. Once we do that, we go back to the 1974 act, do away with the soft money, everything on top of the table, and we are limited on the amount of money--we, candidate--we are limited on buying the office. But the money to buy the office is bad enough when the money goes so far as to buy the principle. That is a shocking thing to me. If there is such a thing as campaign finance reform, then in the name of campaign finance reform, kill this conference report, because this is an abortion. There isn't any question in my mind. It is way worse than we have ever had in any particular measure. I want to say one word about the software industry, because I have worked in the Congress over the years with that particular industry, but they are learning a bad lesson now. They are learning they can buy anything, because they can change around State law, just them. I have been up here, 32, now going on 33, years. We have never done this for any special group. Here they agree something could be fixed in 90 days. That is the provision in the bill. We are giving them still--you have July, August, September, October, November, December, almost 6 months to still get it fixed, rather than 90 days. But they come in and demand this, when they now really are trying to demand everything. Everybody ought to know that the Internet was started by the antigovernment crowd, free market, free market. After we developed the Internet in 1968, with Dopper, thereupon, there came, later on, in the middle of the 1980s, none other than the best of the best, President Reagan. He gave a voluntary restraint agreement to the semiconductor industry because they were going broke. Intel had given up one of their particular display chips, if you remember. They were going out of business. They hung on, and we instituted Semi-Tech. When I went into the Intel plant in Dublin, Ireland, the manager there, Mr. Frank McCabe, said: Senator, we would have never had all of this if you hadn't put the $500 million in Semi- Tech. That is government. They are all talking about pork, pork, pork. I want to emphasize the pork about which my distinguished colleague always talks. We gave them that particular pork, and now they have come to town and they want estate tax cuts. They want the capital gains tax cut. They want to do away with taxing the Internet. If you buy something on Main Street, America, you have to pay the sales tax. But if you buy it on the Internet, there is no tax. It is a free ride. Don't tax the Internet. And by the way, don't hold me liable. Let's legalize negligence. Let's legalize fraud, with this particular bill, and then just repeal the tort system. This is a sad day for the Senate to come here with this particular conference report and talk in terms of a victory for America. It is a real bad setback by the White House, the leadership--not on the House side, I can tell you that. We have struggled over this thing. I tried to hold it up as much as I could, but the die has been cast. I will retain at this particular point the remainder of my time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No Governor, no Attorney General, no State legal group supports this legislation. On the contrary, there is a letter here from the Conference of Chief Justices of the several States in opposition to this measure. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, S. 1312, the Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999. The United States has a telecommunications system that is unequaled. We have worked hard to ensure that consumers in all parts of the country have access to this system and enjoy services at an affordable price. Therefore, when the Bell companies asked us to allow them to enter the long distance market, it was with great caution that we began to develop policies that would change the existing framework. We did not want to jeopardize existing service as we phased in competition into local markets and allowed local phone companies to enter the long distance market. Bell companies worked with Congress to create the fourteen point checklist and they celebrated the passage of the 1996 Act. They then filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enter the long distance market. However, the FCC found that the Bell companies had not opened their local markets to competition, and therefore, under the 1996 Act, could not enter the long distance market. Once the Bell companies realized that they were not going to get into the long distance market before they complied with the 1996 Act, they began a strategy of litigation to delay competition into their local markets and hold on to their monopolies. They appealed the FCC's decisions to the Court of Appeals and challenged the constitutionality of the Act taking their case to the Supreme Court. Having lost in those forums they have now come to Congress seeking changes to the Act that only three years ago they championed. As a result bills have been introduced in the Senate and the House that significantly amend the 1996 Act, harm competition in the local markets, and slow the delivery of advanced, affordable services to consumers. Therefore, I introduce this legislation as part of a continuing effort to promote competition in the local telecommunications markets. I am frustrated by the broken promises of the Bell companies given that not a single Bell company has adequately opened its local phone market to competition since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to wall street analysts, as of the end of last year new entrants had only 2.5 percent of all access lines while Bell companies and incumbent local exchange carriers continued to control over 97 percent of those lines into the home. Three years ago when we passed the 1996 Act, Bell companies proclaimed that they would open their markets immediately and begin competing. In fact, they and their lawyers helped write the 14 point checklist--their roadmap into the long distance market in their region. All these companies have to do to provide long distance service in their regions is to follow that roadmap and meet the requirements of Section 271. I remember the excitement by the local phone companies at the time of the 1996 Act. On March 5, 1996, Bell South-Alabama President, Neal Travis, stated that the ``Telecommunications Act now means that consumers will have more choices . . . We are going full speed ahead . . . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our residential and business wireline customers.'' And, on February 8, 1996, USWest's President of Long Distance, Richard Coleman, issued this statement: ``The Inter-LATA long distance potential is a tremendous business opportunity for USWest. Customers have made it clear they want one-stop shopping for both their local and long distance service. We are preparing to give them exactly what they've been asking for.'' He went on to predict that USWest would meet the 14 point checklist in a majority of its states within 12-18 months. Ameritech's chief executive office, Richard Notebaert February 1, 1996, noted his support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[t]he real open competition this bill promotes will bring customers more choices, competitive prices and better quality services . . . [T]his bill will rank as one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal legislation passed this decade . . . It offers a comprehensive communications policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the competitive marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information age.'' Those were the statements of the local phone companies in 1996. What has happened since then? The answer is very little. In fact, rather than meet their promises, the local phone companies were in federal court challenging the FCC's implementation of the Act less than one year after its enactment. In addition, only five applications for Section 271 relief have been filed at the FCC--and none have met the requirements of section 271. On more than one occasion, the FCC's decision to deny a 271 application has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court. One of the regional Bell companies even challenged the constitutionality of section 271--a challenge the court of appeals denied and the Supreme Court refused to hear. Today, there are no 271 applications on file at the FCC and not a single application has been presented to the FCC since July 1998. What this means for the customer is that the choice and the local competition we tried to create with the passage of the Telecommunications Act has been thwarted by the very companies that promised to compete. Instead, they have chosen to litigate, complain, and combine. Just two days ago, the Chairman of the FCC decided to grant SBC and Ameritech approval to merge their operations. In permitting the merger to go forward, the FCC has conditioned approval on future performance--performance which SBC has not met in the three years since the passage of the 1996 Act. In fact, on the same day conditional approval of the SBC and Ameritech merger was announced, SBC agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle disputes surrounding alleged violations of sections of the 1996 Act dealing with the provision of long distance service. One company will now control one-third of all access lines in the United States even though its market is not open to competition. Competition again becomes a casualty of the unwillingness of Bell companies, to open their markets and let go of their monopolies. Today, there are companies seeking to connect to the Bell networks and provide service to consumers. However, these companies often times experience significant difficulties in obtaining access to these networks. Thus, while I applaud the efforts of the competitive local exchange carriers, long distance carriers, and the cable industry to provide facilities-based local competition, I must express my disappointment that not a single regional bell operating company has sufficiently opened its markets to competition. Since the beginning of this Congress, many of the Bell companies have been meeting with Senators and Representatives, often accompanied by the same lawyers who helped write the Telecommunications Act. But this time their message is different. They are asking us to change the rules of the game. They now want to offer lucrative high-speed data services for long distance customers without first having to open their local markets to competition. They maintain that they should be permitted to continue their hold on the local customer as they provide data services because the 1996 Act did not contemplate the provision of such services. To state it plainly--they are wrong. The Telecommunications Act clearly contemplated the provision of advanced services--data and otherwise. In fact, the Act had an entire section dedicated to promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as ``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.'' Regardless, nothing in the 1996 Act prevents phone companies from providing high speed data services to consumers inside and outside their region. They are already providing DSL service to customers inside their region. And, under the 1996 Act, Bell companies can provide long distance service in their region once they open their local markets. We must hold to this principle if we want consumers to have a choice of service providers. In fact, a number of Bell companies are working to meet Section 271 requirements. I applaud those attempts which, if successful, will ultimately provide new and innovative services at low prices to consumers. Therefore, I reject their proposed legislative solutions, and instead, forward a different proposal. By 2001, five years will have passed since the Telecommunications Act became law. I believe, it is reasonable to expect Bell companies to have at least one-half of their markets in their region open to competition by 2001 and all of their markets in their region open to competition by 2003. The legislation that I introduce today accomplishs just that. My bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to assess a forfeiture penalty of $100,000 per day if a Bell operating company has not met the section 271 checklist in at least half of the states in its region by February 8, 2001--the five year anniversary of President Clinton signing the Telecommunications Act into law. Moreover, if the FCC finds that a Bell operating company has not met the section 271 checklist throughout its region by February 8, 2003, the Commission is required to order the company to divest its telecommunications network facilities within six months, in states in which it is not in compliance with the checklist. With respect to non-Bell incumbent local exchange carriers with more than 5 percent of the access lines in the nation, the Commission, upon the petition of any interested party, is required to investigate whether the carrier's markets are open to competition to determine whether such carrier has complied with the interconnection requirements of the Act. A determination that such an incumbent local exchange company has not opened its markets shall result in a $50,000 per day forfeiture penalty, to be imposed by the FCC, if the company does not come into compliance within 60 days. In addition, the FCC shall order the company to cease and desist in marketing and selling long distance services to new customers, if it has not complied within the 60 day grace period. Lastly, to protect competition once the Bell companies have met the section 271 checklist requirements, this bill provides the FCC with additional enforcement tools. If, at some point after meeting the checklist requirements, a Bell company fails to meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall impose a forfeiture penalty of $100,000 for each day of the continuing violation. Moreover, if, after meeting the checklist requirements, the Bell company willfully, knowing, and repeatedly fails to meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall require the Bell company, within 180 days, to divest its telecommunications network facilities in states in which the repeated violations have occurred. While these penalties may appear severe, severe action needs to be taken to force dominant market providers to open their markets to competition. During the debate over the Telecommunications Act, we did not include such a strong approach. Rather, we settled on a rational and reasonable set of procedures--endorsed by the local phone monoplies--that provided incentives to open their local markets while preserving the integrity of the premier communications networks in the world. That approach seemed particularly palatable in light of the statements issued at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act by the local phone companies promising an early opening of the local phone market pursuant to the requirements of the Section 271 checklist. Today, our communications networks remain the envy of the world and the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating rapidly. Unfortunately, the rollout of those services on a competitive basis to all Americans is being thwarted by the failure of Bell companies to open their markets to competition. Those same monopolists told us their markets would be open months ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their word. I ask consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, S. 1312, the Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999. The United States has a telecommunications system that is unequaled. We have worked hard to ensure that consumers in all parts of the country have access to this system and enjoy services at an affordable price. Therefore, when the Bell companies asked us to allow them to enter the long distance market, it was with great caution that we began to develop policies that would change the existing framework. We did not want to jeopardize existing service as we phased in competition into local markets and allowed local phone companies to enter the long distance market. Bell companies worked with Congress to create the fourteen point checklist and they celebrated the passage of the 1996 Act. They then filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enter the long distance market. However, the FCC found that the Bell companies had not opened their local markets to competition, and therefore, under the 1996 Act, could not enter the long distance market. Once the Bell companies realized that they were not going to get into the long distance market before they complied with the 1996 Act, they began a strategy of litigation to delay competition into their local markets and hold on to their monopolies. They appealed the FCC's decisions to the Court of Appeals and challenged the constitutionality of the Act taking their case to the Supreme Court. Having lost in those forums they have now come to Congress seeking changes to the Act that only three years ago they championed. As a result bills have been introduced in the Senate and the House that significantly amend the 1996 Act, harm competition in the local markets, and slow the delivery of advanced, affordable services to consumers. Therefore, I introduce this legislation as part of a continuing effort to promote competition in the local telecommunications markets. I am frustrated by the broken promises of the Bell companies given that not a single Bell company has adequately opened its local phone market to competition since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to wall street analysts, as of the end of last year new entrants had only 2.5 percent of all access lines while Bell companies and incumbent local exchange carriers continued to control over 97 percent of those lines into the home. Three years ago when we passed the 1996 Act, Bell companies proclaimed that they would open their markets immediately and begin competing. In fact, they and their lawyers helped write the 14 point checklist--their roadmap into the long distance market in their region. All these companies have to do to provide long distance service in their regions is to follow that roadmap and meet the requirements of Section 271. I remember the excitement by the local phone companies at the time of the 1996 Act. On March 5, 1996, Bell South-Alabama President, Neal Travis, stated that the ``Telecommunications Act now means that consumers will have more choices . . . We are going full speed ahead . . . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our residential and business wireline customers.'' And, on February 8, 1996, USWest's President of Long Distance, Richard Coleman, issued this statement: ``The Inter-LATA long distance potential is a tremendous business opportunity for USWest. Customers have made it clear they want one-stop shopping for both their local and long distance service. We are preparing to give them exactly what they've been asking for.'' He went on to predict that USWest would meet the 14 point checklist in a majority of its states within 12-18 months. Ameritech's chief executive office, Richard Notebaert February 1, 1996, noted his support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[t]he real open competition this bill promotes will bring customers more choices, competitive prices and better quality services . . . [T]his bill will rank as one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal legislation passed this decade . . . It offers a comprehensive communications policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the competitive marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information age.'' Those were the statements of the local phone companies in 1996. What has happened since then? The answer is very little. In fact, rather than meet their promises, the local phone companies were in federal court challenging the FCC's implementation of the Act less than one year after its enactment. In addition, only five applications for Section 271 relief have been filed at the FCC--and none have met the requirements of section 271. On more than one occasion, the FCC's decision to deny a 271 application has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court. One of the regional Bell companies even challenged the constitutionality of section 271--a challenge the court of appeals denied and the Supreme Court refused to hear. Today, there are no 271 applications on file at the FCC and not a single application has been presented to the FCC since July 1998. What this means for the customer is that the choice and the local competition we tried to create with the passage of the Telecommunications Act has been thwarted by the very companies that promised to compete. Instead, they have chosen to litigate, complain, and combine. Just two days ago, the Chairman of the FCC decided to grant SBC and Ameritech approval to merge their operations. In permitting the merger to go forward, the FCC has conditioned approval on future performance--performance which SBC has not met in the three years since the passage of the 1996 Act. In fact, on the same day conditional approval of the SBC and Ameritech merger was announced, SBC agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle disputes surrounding alleged violations of sections of the 1996 Act dealing with the provision of long distance service. One company will now control one-third of all access lines in the United States even though its market is not open to competition. Competition again becomes a casualty of the unwillingness of Bell companies, to open their markets and let go of their monopolies. Today, there are companies seeking to connect to the Bell networks and provide service to consumers. However, these companies often times experience significant difficulties in obtaining access to these networks. Thus, while I applaud the efforts of the competitive local exchange carriers, long distance carriers, and the cable industry to provide facilities-based local competition, I must express my disappointment that not a single regional bell operating company has sufficiently opened its markets to competition. Since the beginning of this Congress, many of the Bell companies have been meeting with Senators and Representatives, often accompanied by the same lawyers who helped write the Telecommunications Act. But this time their message is different. They are asking us to change the rules of the game. They now want to offer lucrative high-speed data services for long distance customers without first having to open their local markets to competition. They maintain that they should be permitted to continue their hold on the local customer as they provide data services because the 1996 Act did not contemplate the provision of such services. To state it plainly--they are wrong. The Telecommunications Act clearly contemplated the provision of advanced services--data and otherwise. In fact, the Act had an entire section dedicated to promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as ``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.'' Regardless, nothing in the 1996 Act prevents phone companies from providing high speed data services to consumers inside and outside their region. They are already providing DSL service to customers inside their region. And, under the 1996 Act, Bell companies can provide long distance service in their region once they open their local markets. We must hold to this principle if we want consumers to have a choice of service providers. In fact, a number of Bell companies are working to meet Section 271 requirements. I applaud those attempts which, if successful, will ultimately provide new and innovative services at low prices to consumers. Therefore, I reject their proposed legislative solutions, and instead, forward a different proposal. By 2001, five years will have passed since the Telecommunications Act became law. I believe, it is reasonable to expect Bell companies to have at least one-half of their markets in their region open to competition by 2001 and all of their markets in their region open to competition by 2003. The legislation that I introduce today accomplishs just that. My bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to assess a forfeiture penalty of $100,000 per day if a Bell operating company has not met the section 271 checklist in at least half of the states in its region by February 8, 2001--the five year anniversary of President Clinton signing the Telecommunications Act into law. Moreover, if the FCC finds that a Bell operating company has not met the section 271 checklist throughout its region by February 8, 2003, the Commission is required to order the company to divest its telecommunications network facilities within six months, in states in which it is not in compliance with the checklist. With respect to non-Bell incumbent local exchange carriers with more than 5 percent of the access lines in the nation, the Commission, upon the petition of any interested party, is required to investigate whether the carrier's markets are open to competition to determine whether such carrier has complied with the interconnection requirements of the Act. A determination that such an incumbent local exchange company has not opened its markets shall result in a $50,000 per day forfeiture penalty, to be imposed by the FCC, if the company does not come into compliance within 60 days. In addition, the FCC shall order the company to cease and desist in marketing and selling long distance services to new customers, if it has not complied within the 60 day grace period. Lastly, to protect competition once the Bell companies have met the section 271 checklist requirements, this bill provides the FCC with additional enforcement tools. If, at some point after meeting the checklist requirements, a Bell company fails to meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall impose a forfeiture penalty of $100,000 for each day of the continuing violation. Moreover, if, after meeting the checklist requirements, the Bell company willfully, knowing, and repeatedly fails to meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall require the Bell company, within 180 days, to divest its telecommunications network facilities in states in which the repeated violations have occurred. While these penalties may appear severe, severe action needs to be taken to force dominant market providers to open their markets to competition. During the debate over the Telecommunications Act, we did not include such a strong approach. Rather, we settled on a rational and reasonable set of procedures--endorsed by the local phone monoplies--that provided incentives to open their local markets while preserving the integrity of the premier communications networks in the world. That approach seemed particularly palatable in light of the statements issued at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act by the local phone companies promising an early opening of the local phone market pursuant to the requirements of the Section 271 checklist. Today, our communications networks remain the envy of the world and the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating rapidly. Unfortunately, the rollout of those services on a competitive basis to all Americans is being thwarted by the failure of Bell companies to open their markets to competition. Those same monopolists told us their markets would be open months ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their word. I ask consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my esteemed former colleague, Ambassador Jim Sasser. He will soon be stepping down from his post as the longest serving American Ambassador to China. But it does not seem long ago that he and I were working together on the Budget Committee where he served as the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. In fact, as we talk today of the great state of the economy, it should be former Senator Sasser that we thank for having the leadership to push through the deficit reduction package that has led to today's unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. As a former Budget Committee Chairman myself, it was with great pride that I worked side-by-side with the former Senator in the Budget Committee because I understood the great challenges that the job entailed. He did a superb job in his duties here in the Senate, and it is with the same dedication and fairness that he represented this nation so admirably in his post as the U.S. Ambassador to China. I still remember vividly the front page of the newspaper a few months ago which showed Ambassador Sasser looking through the shattered window of the American Embassy. Suffice to say that Ambassador Sasser has served during some very difficult times in China-U.S. relations. Few relationships are as difficult to define and put in perspective and I think that Ambassador Sasser would agree that there is still much work to be done. But during his tenure, Ambassador Sasser was able to build consensus and to find common ground between the two nations that has allowed the relationship to prosper. Ambassador Sasser should be commended for his dedication as a gifted emissary between the world's largest developed country and the world's largest developing country. He has served the United States admirably and I commend him for his dutiful service.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my distinguished colleague. Mr. President, so the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has time for the independent counsel, I ask unanimous consent to extend his time from 12:05 to 12:35 so his half hour can be preserved.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank both of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I awoke with a shock when I saw we had $1 trillion more money to spend. I go right back to 1995, just 4 years ago, when I said I will jump off the Capitol dome if this budget is balanced by the year 2002. I said to myself, it looks as if I am going to have to jump off the dome, because they found another $1 trillion. We just have surpluses everywhere. I felt that way until I picked up the President's document--the budget of the U.S. Government that they gave us today, hot off the press. Turn to page 42 and Members will see the actual deficit in 1998 at the end of September was $5,478.7 trillion. The distinguished Presiding Officer, who is a certified public accountant, knows how to add and subtract. For the 5 years, on page 42, the total gross Federal debt goes to $6,298 trillion. The Federal debt by the year 2002 that I was worried about has already increased some $400 billion. By the year 2004, it has increased from the 1999 deficit $551.1 billion. The debt is going up half a trillion, and everybody is talking surplus. That is totally dismaying to this particular Senator. It is a shabby game and a fraud that we play on the American public. The only entity to keep us honest is the free press. They join in the fraud. They had a debate some years ago, between Mr. Walter Lippmann and John Dewey. This is back before the war. Lippmann's contention was that the way to really build and strengthen a democracy is to get the best of minds in the various disciplines--whether it is in medicine or whether it is in law or whether it is in finance or whether it is foreign policy--get the best of the best minds around a table, determine the needs of the country, and give it to the Congressmen and Senators and let them enact it into law. John Dewey countered that. He said: No, the better way is to give the American people the truth, and the American people, in a consummate way, through their Representatives in the Congress, the House and Senate, would reflect those truths, and we would have a strong democracy. That is the way since Jefferson's time, when he said: [. . . as between] a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. That was because he was depending, over many years--now over the 200 years we have had--on that media expounding and telling us the truth. The truth is, there is nothing in the lockbox that everybody is talking about. We have been spending it--$857 billion that we owe Social Security this very minute. So there is nothing in the lockbox. You can see from this document, when they say, pay down the public debt, there is no such thing as paying down any kind of special debt. You either have a debt that increases or a debt that decreases and comes into balance. They play that shabby game called ``paying down.'' The President even said, as quoted in the New York Times this morning, that he was going to tear up the credit card. What they do is transfer the debt from the general indebtedness of Government, namely for defense and spending and everything else, foreign policy and otherwise, and transfer it over to Social Security, over to the military retirees, civilian retirement, over to Medicare, because there is a surplus. So they transfer that debt into these trust funds and say that is paying down the debt. It is like having a Visa and a MasterCard and you pay off your Visa card with the MasterCard. You are still the Government. If you are still the individual, you have your individual debt; if you are still the Government, you have the Government debt. One more word and I will yield with gratitude to my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania. Just turn to page 43, the next page. You can see the 15-year; they have the debt held by the Government, accounts held at the end of the period, which has to be added up with the debt held by the public at the end of the period, and you will see the debt goes up to $7.587 trillion. The debt goes up almost $2 trillion over that 15 years. Fortuitously, back 4 years ago I was saying that when President Reagan came to town we had an annual budget deficit from year to year and President Reagan said: I am going to balance it the first year. Then he said: Whoops, this is worse than I ever thought; I'll do it in 3 years. Then, with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, we did it in 5 years. I said, before long we are going up to 10 or 15 years. And sure enough, this morning they have gone up with all kinds of estimates of revenues. Really, the way to play, if you want to play this game, is let's have a 25-year budget. We will have enough money for everything. Send the money to the U.N., double the amounts to the United Nations, double the tax cut. Let's double all these things, give it all to investment accounts, health care, whatever you want. Let's have a 25-year budget and really go to spending up here. It is a wonderful charade. It is a lord-awful fraud. It is only up to the media to cut out this nonsense about surplus when we are spending, this year, $100 billion more than we are taking in. It shows from the President's own figures we will continue to spend more than we take in, increasing the debt, which brings us to the $350 to $365 billion interest costs on the national debt. Before long, I am going to put in a tax allocated to really getting rid of that debt, whereby we will give a $3.5-trillion tax cut, namely, get rid of that interest cost over the 10-year period. That is the kind of tax cut the Senator from South Carolina would like. I thank my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the Republican Policy Committee talking points on S. 605 dated June 15.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this blasphemy--and it is blasphemy--has to stop. The Republican Party fought Social Security. They cut all the benefits back in 1986, but still they do not learn. That is how they lost the Senate at that time. Now they have been trying to privatize and get rid of Social Security. This is just another charade. The Senator from New Jersey is correct, we cannot offer an amendment, for the simple reason that when they laid their bill down, they filled up the tree, and, under that premise, you cannot offer an amendment. My amendment, S. 605, would be relevant to this piece of legislation. It has been referred to the Budget Committee. You cannot make it more relevant than having it referred to that committee. S. 605 creates a true lockbox. We worked it out with Ken Apfel and the Social Security Administration where we pay an equal amount of those securities back into the Social Security trust fund. What does the Republican policy committee say? They take the entire debt. Mr. President, I had no idea that the Republicans would admit to the fact that there is nothing in the lockbox. Actually, at the end of this fiscal year, by the end of September--this is June--we will owe Social Security $857 billion. Read the policy committee statement. They say: . . . the end of this fiscal year . . . is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $857 billion. They finally admit there is nothing in the lockbox. The intent of Hollings in S. 605, and others who have cosponsored it, is to put some money in the lockbox; namely, the annual surpluses. I have juxtaposed the language in my legislation but I can tell you, you can see their intent by this Republican policy committee statement. The 1994 Pension Reform Act says you cannot pay off your debt with pension funds. But they have been doing that, and their particular bill continues to pay down the debt with the pension funds. They have tried to do that under the ruse that it would be terrible by calling it, what? They call it stockpiling hard currency, and it is going to wreck the world economy. I wish everybody would read the talking points of the Republican Policy Committee and this nonsense they have afoot. There is not any question that they intend to spend the money. They have one sentence in here: In addition, over the next 10 years . . . CBO estimates Social Security will run a surplus of $1.78 trillion. And so, the costs of this proposal are enormous. Substitute the word ``savings'' for the word ``costs.'' The savings to Social Security will be enormous if we pass S. 605. But their intent is that there be nothing in the lockbox. The Senator from Michigan sits down there with his senior citizen picture. I am a senior citizen. I am not worried. Strom is not worried. We are going to get our money. It is the young baby boomer generation that the Greenspan Commission said set aside for--actually section 21 of the Greenspan Commission report--that should be worried. The law, section 13301 of the Budget Act, says to do exactly that. But they continue to put this shabby act on the other side of the aisle like they have a lockbox and they are trying to save Social Security Trust Fund monies, when they know full well there is nothing in the lockbox. The Republican Policy Committee said they are guaranteeing that nothing is ever going to be in that lockbox.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of S. 605, as amended.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today it is my great privilege and honor to salute one of my home state's legendary craftsmen, Philip Simmons, on his 87th birthday. Mr. Simmons retired in 1990 after more than 60 years as a master blacksmith in Charleston, SC. Despite his retirement, Mr. Simmons takes great pride in checking in on his shop each day, saying hello to the many workers he trained, some of them for more than 30 years, as they carry on the craft. Philip Simmons' renowned ironwork is on display throughout South Carolina, including the symbolic gates to the city outside the Meeting Street Visitors Center in Charleston, at the S.C. State Museum in Columbia, and he has been inducted into the S.C. Hall of Fame in Myrtle Beach. I am also proud to say that Mr. Simmons work can be viewed here in our nation's capitol at the Smithsonian Museum. The dedication, love and pride in craftsmanship displayed by Philip Simmons and passed on to his apprentices is to be saluted. Mr. Simmons is an appropriately admired member of the South Carolina family and I join his relatives, friends and admirers in wishing him a happy birthday and health and happiness in the years to come.