Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in the bill before us, we have in there something called the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1997. It is hidden in the back of the bill within the general provisions, but boy, does it have great import. This language asks us to split the ninth circuit court into two circuits--the ninth circuit would include California, Guam, Nevada, and the Northern Mariana Islands while the twelfth circuit would include Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Needless to say, I am certain my friends from these States will have something to say about this matter. While there will be Senators here to talk about the pros and cons of splitting this ninth circuit court, I would like to say to my colleagues that this is neither the time nor place to be talking about this issue at all. As far as I can tell, this is a matter that belongs in the most able hands of our Judiciary Committee. This is not a money matter. This is true and true new authorization language that has no place being on our appropriations bill. In our full committee mark of the bill, Senators Reid and Boxer asked the committee to create a commission to study the state of all the circuits and make recommendations according to the big picture. The rationale behind this is to let the experts who know and understand our circuit courts tell us what they think before we do anything drastic. Expanding Federal caseloads is a nationwide problem requiring a nationwide solution. We can't sit here on our appropriations bill and pretend to be experts as to what's best for the ninth circuit or all the circuit courts, especially without ever having any hearings on the topic, and especially not knowing how much our decision will cost us. Believe me, splitting the ninth circuit court will without a doubt incur upon us additional costs that we haven't even begun to predict. So I urge my chairman and my colleagues to listen when I say that this issue must go. We need to give this to the Judiciary Committee where I have confidence they will make an informed and thorough decision in a field that is theirs and theirs alone.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again, we tried to go to the fundamental that a $2.5 billion company does not have the ability to develop it or to pursue it or to commercialize it. Now, why doesn't it have that ability? I emphasize, of course, the way the market and the financing of projects works. You have to have a quick turnaround. A lot of good, fundamental research technology is not developed and not commercialized in the United States for the simple reason that the market financing infrastructure does not allow it. If you were chairman of the board, then we would see how long you last unless you turn around and get your stock up. And that is the name of the game in America. And they all have to play it. When they get a choice of anything beyond 2 or 3 years, then obviously the board members, everybody wants to look like good guys and making money and everything else for the stockholders. The pressure is there to go ahead and export it, get an arrangement, a split arrangement with any of the other countries that would want to try to develop it. That is our global competition. Specifically, right here, in Business Week: To stay in the game, Singapore is stepping up its industrial subsidies. In September, the Government announced it will pump $2.85 billion over the next 5 years into science and technology development including research and development grants for multinationals. No small business. I am trying to get my friend from Kansas to understand we have got the Small Business Administration. We take care of small business. We favor small business. But what we are looking at, to keep the eye on the target, is the development and commercialization of technology. And small business, if they went with good research that could really be proven to the SBA, they would get total financing right now. They would get it underwritten under the SBA technology grants. We worked that program far more than the little $200 million in this particular endeavor. They have over $800 million in grant authorization for small business. Please, my gracious, let us go with it. Global competition is such that the smallest of the small competitor, Singapore, recently helped fund a $51 million research development facility for whom? For Sony, a $2.5 billion corporation: Last month Lucent Technologies received a grant for a new communications research and development endeavor. I could go on down reading these articles. I wish everybody in the National Government would be given a book by Eamonn Fingleton entitled ``Blind Side.'' We have all been running around and talking about the bank problems in Japan and, oh, Japan has all kinds of problems, and they really have their back up against the wall; they are not any competition any longer. The fact is, Mr. President, last year while we had a 2.5 percent growth with the market booming. A rebirth in America, we have the strongest economy, Greenspan says he's never seen such a thing, 2.5- percent growth, Japan had 3.6 percent growth. The name of the game is market share, market share. They are copying it off right and left. And at this moment, this very moment, for example, the great big automaker, United States of America, exports less cars than Mexico. Mark it down. You are down there in that area, Mr. President. Mexico exports more automobiles than the United States of America. I just helped break ground for Honda in Timmonsville, SC. Who exports more cars than any other entity in America? Honda; the Japanese. Not General Motors, not Ford, not Chrysler. Honda. When are we going to wake up to what's going on? Market share. If you read Fingleton's book, you go to the Ministry of Finance. Don't worry about MITI, go to the Ministry of Finance and you get your financing, your large corporations. Now, please, my gracious, I am for the little man. I am a Democrat. Heavens above. We know the large corporate welfare crowd. But we have been for the little man against hunger. I just voted to take $5 million off administration in the Department of Agricultural budget to get more lunchroom programs. So don't talk about corporate welfare and try to identify. We are talking about global competition, which, frankly, the White House doesn't even understand. You know why I say that. We had a course on Tuesday on NAFTA, North American Free-Trade Agreement, where we brought in Mexico in 1994, and we were going to have a sort of update on how it was doing, whether it was a success or not. They wouldn't even send an administration witness to the senatorial committee, and that's why they called off the particular hearing. They are embarrassed that they said we would create 200,000 jobs. We have lost 300,000. I will show you the Department of Labor statistics. We have lost in textiles and apparel 231,000 alone. So instead of increasing it in one direction, we have decreased it in the other direction; we have been exporting fine, good-paying jobs in the particular industry that predominates my own State. They said, well, we are going to increase trade. We had a plus balance of trade of $5 billion and we have gone to a $16 billion minus balance. And they say exports, exports. Well, exports are up. We are sending parts down there to be assembled into automobiles and the good automobile manufacturer is moving to Mexico. You would, too. I do not blame them. I blame us, you and me. This is the policy. In manufacturing, a third of your operating costs goes into labor, to payroll, and you can save as much as 20 percent by moving to an offshore, or down in Mexico, low wages and little or no worker or environmental protections. When I say no particular protections, colleagues are running around on this Senate floor saying you have to have a minimum wage, you have to have clean air and clean water and plant closing and parental leave, Social Security, Medicare, occupational safety from hazard, and up and down the list. Whoopee, yea, we are great. And then we put in a policy that says you don't have to do any of that. You can go offshore for 58 cents an hour. Did you see the program on Mexico just last night on public television? Come on. We are losing the jobs right and left. We are losing our technology right and left. Eamonn Fingleton in his book--and I called him just the other day because he has updated it now with a paperback-- projected by 2000 we would be blind-sided. Today, Japan, a country as big as the State of California, manufactures more than the great United States of America. It has a greater manufacturing output. And otherwise by the year 2000 it will have a greater gross domestic product, a larger economy, and I will bet you on it. And I want them to come here and take the bets because I believe he is right. You can just see how the market share goes. You see how the GDP goes and everything else of that kind. We are going out of business the way of Great Britain. They told the Brits at the end of World War II, the empire was breaking up, they said don't worry about it. Instead of a nation of brawn, we will be a nation of brains; instead of producing products, provide services, a service economy. Instead of creating wealth with manufacturing we are going to become a financial center. And England today, Mr. President--I have the distinguished President's attention--England, the United Kingdom has less of an economy than little irrelevant Ireland. Mark it down. Read the Economist just a month ago. Yes, Ireland, now bigger, economically than the United Kingdom. All they have is a debating society. London is a downtown amusement park. Come on. Are we going to head that way as we go out of business, continue to appropriate again more and more moneys and finance our campaigns with these false promises of ``I am going to cut taxes.'' Oh, the Post is running around: ``Are you for cutting taxes? Yes, I'm for cutting taxes.'' You cannot cut your and my taxes today without increasing our children's taxes tomorrow. We have deficit financing. We will get into that debate again when they bring the reconciliation bill over. It is not the Chinese trying to get into our elections. If they want to get into our elections, do as the Japanese do. Pat Choate wrote the book, ``The Agents of Influence,'' 7 years ago. One hundred Japanese law firms, consultants here in Washington paid over $113 million. Add up the pay of the Senators and Congressmen, the 535 Members of Congress, and boy, oh, boy, you get, about $71.3 million. The Japanese in Washington by way of pay are better represented than the people of America. When are we going to wake up? Tell the Chinese, ``For Heaven's sake, to do the same thing as the Japanese. Give it to a lawyer. Tell them to come around and find some lawyers. But, no, we want to turn this into corporate welfare, show that we fought against corporate welfare. Absolute folly. There is no corporate welfare at all in this. It is, by gosh, trying to commercialize technology and we will not face up to the reality. We are going out of business and now we want to say to those who do the general research, the unique research, that there is no reason to try and get into anything marginal that is going to take over 3 years to develop. Sell it, move on to the next thing. Let us continue the outflow of business, the outflow of jobs, the outflow of technology, and the outflow of our security. And everybody comes around and says that's a good idea. I think, to the President's credit, it ought to be emphasized that he put this program down as a quid pro quo in the leadership agreement. Now, the agreement has been on both sides of the aisle, the Democratic and Republican agreement, the White House and the congressional agreement that the Advanced Technology Program would be funded at this particular level and in the manner in which it is currently funded. What we are being asked for in this particular amendment is to violate that agreement. We are running right into a veto situation on a small matter while trying to make it appear as corporate welfare. The opponents of this program don't tell you about the National Academy of Engineering. You show me another grant program that has to be reviewed that way. I wish we still had Senator Danforth here because he and I worked on this thing over the years to develop the bill's credibility, but now we are going to start tearing down its credibility, by changing it into a small business program for those small companies that can't afford to really commercialize their technology. They can't afford to engage in general research, or in unique research to begin with, on account of its small nature. They just don't have the labs and facilities that the large companies do. But we want to act as political animals up here, pollster politicians and so we are for tax cuts, when we go up and continue to increase the debt. We have been reducing the deficit each year for 5 years. Now we are going to use the public till to run around and say we are going to cut revenues while we increase, and we are going to have to go out and borrow the money to do it, because we are in the red. We are not in the black. So we will take that multitrillion-dollar debt and interest costs of $1 billion a day and increase that for nothing. In the last 16 years we have increased the debt from less than $1 trillion to $5.4 trillion without the cost of a single war. Mr. President, in 200 years of history with the cost of all the wars we have not even reached a trillion. Now we jump to $5.4 trillion and instead of $75 billion--$74.8 billion, to be exact, we are going to up to $365 billion, $1 billion a day. That extra $285 billion, we are spending it for nothing. And there are all these fellows talking about pork and welfare and getting rid of the waste, and using that rhetoric for their reelection next year. ``I am against taxes, I am against the Government, get rid of the Government.'' That's the big hoopla they have going on, on the other side of the Hill. They are now tasking the leadership of the contract to get rid of the Department of Commerce, to get rid of the Advanced Technology Program, to get rid of all the Government that pays for itself and keeps us secure and keeps us superior as a nation. So now they are going against jobs, against the security of the land, and for corporate welfare, based on this amendment. They say, just on account of the $2.5 billion measure, that ``the corporation has the ability to pursue it,'' their exact words. Yet, everyone knows that the CEO's do not have the ability if they are going to be a good corporate head. They are going to put their moneys elsewhere because where the turnaround is, there also is the competition, and they also know that the other governments are financing not only the research but development and taking over the market share. We are going to holler, ``let market forces, let market forces''-- well, let's look at the market that we developed here in the National Government, through measures such as minimum wage, plant closings, clean air, clean water--which we all vote for, Republican and Democrat. But the companies say, ``You don't have any of that in global competition.'' In addition, they are financing it like we finance research for the aircraft industry. They have learned from the United States. We finance Boeing, we are proud of them. They produce and ship planes globally. Thank God we still have one industry. Now, however, we have shipped the technology on the FSX to Japan, and Boeing has had to move the parts manufacturing into the People's Republic of China. We are beginning to lose that segment of manufacturing. We are losing the automobile industry. Now we are going to lose the aerospace industry. They told me years ago, ``Hollings, what's the matter with you? Let the developing nations, the Third World, make the textiles and the shoes and we will make the airplanes and the computers.'' Now our competition in the global competition is making the airplanes and the computers and the textiles and the shoes and we are running around here jabbering about, ``free trade, free trade, free trade, let market forces, let market forces, let market forces,'' and don't have any realization of the actual market forces that we, as politicians, created. I hope this amendment will be defeated in consonance with the overall agreement of the leadership in the Congress and the White House on the one hand--and defeated based on common sense and competition on the other hand. I know my distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Senator Frist, has been leading now, in our committee. He has been holding hearings, and has been providing leadership on addressing the issues relating to the Advanced Technology Program. I know the others that are interested in this program, including those that I have listed--trying to emphasize, by the way, that this effort is bipartisan. Senator Danforth and I worked this out 10 years ago, and the program is working. It is working well. We need more money. Thousands and thousands of qualified grants still don't receive funding. I asked, I say, does the Senator from Kansas have the documentation where small business really applied but the big companies got the award? If that occurred we would have it here. He said these little businesses are being denied. I know the Commerce Department, Secretary Daley. I know the administration of this particular program and they look for the small business in order to sustain the credibility and support of the program because since its beginnings, critics have been watching the Advanced Technology Program closely for the simple reason they don't understand. They think, ``Well, get rid of the Government. Find out where the pork is. Find out where the welfare is. Characterize it as welfare. Say you have these big Fortune 500 companies, they have $2.5 billion so they can do it.'' And they don't understand what they are talking about. It is a sad day when we even propose an amendment of this kind, because it shows that we really don't understand competition, although we keep running around like parrots, ``Competition, competition, competition.'' We are the ones with these kind of amendments that destroy competition. We are against welfare but we are the ones with these kind of amendments that create welfare. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished chairman. Mr. President, this Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill is probably the most complicated of the 13 appropriations bills. In it we fund programs ranging from the FBI to our embassies overseas, to fisheries research to the Small Business Administration. It requires a balancing act--considering the priorities of our President, our colleagues here in the Senate, and our Nation, in equitably distributing our subcommittee 602(b) allocation to the many programs in this bill. I think Chairman Gregg has done a masterful job in putting it together, and I support him in bringing this very solid bill before the Senate. I would especially like to recognize the majority staff who are all new to this bill--Jim Morhard, Paddy Link, Kevin Linskey, Carl Truscott, and Dana Quam, and our Democratic staff--Scott Gudes, Emelie East, and Karen Swanson-Wolf. They have been working night and day to put together this bill. They have done a truly outstanding job, and have ensured a bipartisan spirit was maintained throughout this entire process. In total, this bill provides $31.623 billion in budget authority. That is about half-a-billion dollars below the President's budget request * * * and it is right at our section 602(b) allocation. The bill is $1.4 billion above this year's appropriated levels. justice Once again, our bill makes it clear we're not fooling around with Justice and law enforcement priorities. The bill provides appropriations totaling $17.3 billion--an increase of $862 million above last year. Including fees we provide the Department, the total Justice budget comes to $19.3 billion. It might be well to note historically that some 10 years ago the bill was right at $4 billion. We in the Congress run around everywhere, ``Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending.'' If you want to know where the increases in spending occur, you can look at the space program. I followed the thought, of course, of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas--who has been up in space. They say the interest is trying to get Senator John Glenn back in space. My interest is trying to get the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, out of space. He has been up there for 2 days. But he has been doing a masterful job, trying to save moneys there. Now, with respect to the Justice Department, the DEA, hundreds of more FBI agents, a new laboratory there, Cops on the Beat, 1,000 more Border Patrol, half a billion more in prisons--we are building prisons. If you haven't gotten a prison in your State, call us; we will be glad to build you one. Because we are not building schools in America, we are building prisons everywhere. So, everybody ought to understand, in the 10-year period under the leadership here of this Congress, trying to cut spending, we have veritably quintupled the Justice Department. Of this amount, our Federal Bureau of Investigations, the FBI, is provided $3.1 billion, and we have funded completion of its new laboratory at Quantico as well as $10 million to enhance efforts to combat child pornography on the Internet. As, I said, we've made sure the INS will keep our borders secure, by providing an additional, 1,000 Border Patrol agents in the Immigration and Naturalization service. Furthermore, the bill extends section 2451 of the Immigration Act. These fees allow adjustment of status for legal immigrants in the United States and result in the Immigration Service getting almost $200 million per year for border enforcement and combating illegal immigration. This is important to both INS which needs the funding, and the State Department which no longer has the consular officers overseas to provide for adjustment of status in embassies. Within the Justice Department, we also provide $1,033 billion for our prosecutors, the U.S. attorneys. That is an increase of $55 million. I'm pleased to note that it provides for activation of the National Advocacy Center to train our Federal and State prosecutors, and it continues State and local violent crime task forces which report to our U.S. attorneys. So, looking at the Justice grant programs: the COPS Program is provided $1.4 billion; the local law enforcement block grant is $503 million; $590 million is recommended for State prison grants; $264 million for violence against women grants; $580 million is provided in Byrne grants and; $380 million is provided for juvenile justice programs which is over twice the amount as this year. commerce On the Commerce Department, the bill provides $4.169 billion for the Commerce Department. That is an increase of $368 million over this year. Within this Department, the bill provides $659 million for the Census, which is an increase of $314 million. This bill does not prohibit statistical sampling, though we will continue to monitor this issue closely. We have provided $25 million for the Public Broadcasting facilities grants and have rejected the administration's proposal to terminate this program which assists public television and radio. The recommendation includes $200 million for the NIST Advanced Technology Program and $111 million for the Manufacturing Extension Program. So this bill supports the bipartisan budget agreement which specifically made these technology programs a priority. Another program of interest, the International Trade Administration, has been provided with $280.7 million. The biggest account in the Department of Commerce, NOAA, has been provided with $2.1 billion. We have included $473 million for Weather Service operations, an increase of $23 million above the request. This ensures that we won't have a repeat of all the problems we have seen this year. LIke cutting the National Hurriance Center. And this bill continues support for the NOAA oceans programs and the NOAA fleet. I just attended the commissioning of the most modern research vessel in the fleet, the Ronald H. Brown. I am pleased to report that, rather than the interest up here--310 million miles away whether or not some little instrument ran into a rock--in contrast, the NOAA fleet is out researching seven-tenths of the Earth's surface, the oceans and atmosphere, mapping the ocean floor and harbors and conducting surveys of living marine resources so that the NOAA fleet is alive and well. And we are not going to scuttle it as has been proposed here previously.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I share the Commerce Committee chairman's interest in working with the Armed Services Committee to ensure that the future inclusion of maritime provisions in House-passed national defense bills does not impair the Commerce Committee's ability to carry out its jurisdictional responsibility over issues affecting the Maritime Administration and the merchant marine.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I agree that these provisions are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, that the Armed Services Committee should not accept them for inclusion in the final National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998, and that the Commerce Committee should consider these provisions as separate legislation this year.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Mr. Hanley Norment, a great civil rights leader and dedicated family man who died Thursday, July 10, 1997. In 1966, Hanley James Norment came to Washington and a year later, he became a civil rights officer with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. About that time, he started volunteering on the local level, rising from director of media relations to president of the Montgomery County branch of the NAACP. Mr. Norment's political and professional successes were a direct measure of his character. He was an unselfish man, one who put aside the personal for the common good. As his son, Julian, commented, Regardless of philosophical differences, he got along with you, he respected your opinions. Throughout the course of his career as a civil rights leader, Hanley Norment relentlessly championed educational causes, pushing for higher standards and equal opportunities for all children, regardless of race. He knew firsthand the value of a good education. Born in Marianna, AR on January 16, 1932, to Ruby and Samuel Norment, Hanley received his early education in the Arkansas public school system in the Jim Crow era. Undaunted by the circumstances of time and place, Norment earned two B.A. degrees and nearly finished a doctoral degree in political science at the University of Michigan. He used his talents and knowledge generously. For more than 20 years, he tutored individual students through various organizations such as the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity and the NAACP. Mr. Norment was extremely proud of the contributions of his wife, Christa, former principal of Montgomery Knolls Elementary School in Silver Spring, MD, to the field of education. Their children, Camille and Julian, continue the family tradition of academic achievement and public service. Camille is pursuing her second master's degree at New York University and I am proud to have Julian working on my Washington staff. The fruit does not fall far from the tree. Mr. Norment retired in September as director of the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Transportation. At the time of his tragic death, he was president of the Maryland State Conference NAACP branches. Hanley James Norment fought the good fight, finished the course, and kept the faith. We all feel his loss.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one year ago today, I spent the morning in a hearing on aviation safety arguing with the head of the Federal Aviation Administration that we needed higher safety standards and better safety inspections. We finished with the hearing at about the same time 230 people began to prepare for a flight to Paris. As with most flights, I am sure that some people were a little nervous, while others were delighted to be on board and away from the heat and congestion in New York. Shortly after 8:30 p.m., the lives of the 230 people and their families changed forever. Terrorism was the first focus of the National Transportation Safety Board, FBI, and others. It was, and remains, incredible that a perfectly able aircraft, with an experienced crew, would just explode. Yet it happened. To the family of Matt Alexander, July 17 will always remain a tragic memory. Matt was from Florence, South Carolina. He was a student at Wake Forest, going to spend a semester in France. I want to make sure that the families of the victims realize that their losses have not been, and will not be, forgotten. Aviation safety changes will occur that are the direct result of the crash. While new safety measures cannot bring back loved ones, they can help prevent future losses. We already have put in place new procedures to assist the families following aviation disasters. A Federal task force created as part of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 continues to examine ways to make sure that families get needed information, assistance, and privacy following a disaster. None of this will bring back people like Matt, but we can make the process a more humane one.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Consumer Federation and others who have followed this thing have been on the phone and otherwise just fighting to make sure that this was really held up and defeated. And in all fairness, I am sorry, after we see the exchange of letters here recently, that I did not fight this nomination. I put a hold on it. I thought that Members would listen, that they would want to learn and they would want to understand. But evidently the jury has been fixed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters, one by Senator Kerrey to the Attorney General dated June 23, and the letter back from the Office of the Attorney General dated July 14 to Senator Dorgan be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that the Consumer Federation of America letter of July 14, 1997, on this score be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this docket No. 97-121, in the matter of the application of SBC Communications, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, you can read the entire letter. But I can see the thrust of the letter by this language here, and I quote on page 2. Congress, however, gave the Attorney General a role in advising the FCC with respect to public interest issues because of the Department's antitrust expertise. See, for example, House conference report 104-458 for a list of some antitrust standards that might be used. A gas-in-the-pipeline standard is plainly unrelated to antitrust laws, and, even worse, violates Congressional intent that the checklist should be the only measure of when local markets are open. We in the majority who wrote this particular bill would demur very, very strongly from that wording by our distinguished friend, the Senator from Montana, in this particular letter. What occurred is that the nominee, Joel Klein, in the talk, he talked about you can see when competition is present, when you get to see the gas coming through the pipeline. He alludes to the anecdotal situation of gas pipeline cases. But Senator Burns differs with that. He says you are supposed to handle this antitrust, and don't give us anything about when competition starts. You can tell his displeasure because, along with the letter, he put a hold on the Joel Klein nomination. You have a hold on the nomination by the chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, and you got a strong letter with a questionnaire that is included, because I have included it in its entirety in the Record. So 5 days later, on May 20, the Department of Justice, Acting Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein sends a letter to Senator Burns. Madam President, I quote: To begin with, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement that the basic point of the Telecommunications Act is that regulators should stand aside and let market forces work once fair competition is possible. I want to assure you that the Department of Justice shares that view. Well, both distinguished gentlemen are writing and speaking colloquially. One wants to tell you that competition is present when you can see the gas coming through the pipeline, or smell the gas if you can't see it. Otherwise, the Acting Assistant Attorney General said, ``Oh, yes, I want to let'' --in the Conrad letter, all these expressions about ``let market forces.'' What we are trying to do is ``let market forces.'' He said, ``I agree with you. We have to stand aside and let market forces work.'' That, Madam President, is not the duty of the Acting Attorney General of the United States. He is supposed to stand there by that market and watch it day in and day out. Because there is one thing that will occur if you let market forces work freely, and that is, monopolies will develop. Consolidations and mergers you see afoot right now are occurring every day, and money is talking. People are not suffering yet, but when they get into that monopolistic position, they will, because there won't be any of the rules and regulations, and they will be in their own private businesses. This group up here that continues to talk about ``let market forces'' operate, this tells me, one, I have a questionable candidate for the Antitrust Department of the Office of the Attorney General of the United States when he starts chanting about monopolies. Reading on page 2, again, from the Joel Klein letter, I read on page 2, one sentence: In order to accomplish these goals, almost immediately after I became Acting Assistant Attorney last October, I asked all of the BOCs [the Bell Operating Companies] as well as any other interested party, to give me their views of the appropriate competition standards under section 271. We set it out. We set out our report. We didn't need an Assistant Attorney General running around rewriting the law. He is talking about, ``Oh, I got them all in. I am going to start developing policy.'' The Congress developed the policy. It took us 4 years to do it. Here, he says gratuitously in the next sentence on the bottom of page 2--this is Joel Klein, the nominee: In formulating this standard, I specifically rejected using the suggestion in the conference report that the Department analyze Bell Operating Company applications employing the standard used in the AT&T consent decree objecting to the Bell Operating Company in regional long distance entry ``unless there is no substantial possibility that the Bell Operating Company or its affiliates could use its monopoly power to impede competition in the market such company seeks to enter.'' Bear with me a minute. I know this thing sounds complicated. And those who want to watch a good, loud show they put on around the world, or whatever the dickens they put on in the afternoon, go ahead and turn to it. But this is very, very important. Judge Greene had what we call in the trade ``the VIII(c) test''--that they couldn't enter these markets until--this is the one rejected by Joel Klein--``there is no substantial possibility that the Bell Operating Company or its affiliates could use its monopoly power to impede competition in the market such company seeks to do enter.'' Madam President, with that particular VIII(c) test, that is how competition starts in long distance that we have today. We don't have any in the local. Ninety-eight percent of the local calls are still controlled by the local Bell Operating Company. They have the monopoly. But this really genius test, the VIII(c) test, became the standard of the discipline, the standard of the industry. In one hearing, as chairman of the Communications Subcommittee--the Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing--I had the seven Bells attest. And we will put that in the Record, if necessary. They agreed with this particular test. You have the Bell Operating Companies agreeing to that particular test, and that is why we kept it in there. We didn't write it into the formal statute because one former colleague on the House side had held up. He had tremendous influence, Jack Fields of Texas. So we put it in the language. But you follow the course or talk to any of the conferees, you talk to any of the House and Senate Members, they will tell you the VIII(c) test was the test, and we couldn't think of a better one. Here comes nominee Joel Klein, stating categorically here in May, ``In formulating this standard, I specifically rejected using the suggestion in the conference report that the Department analyze BOC applications employing the standard used''--the VIII(c) standard. Madam President, when you work this long and you know the industry, you know the monopolies, you know how Judge Greene held control and operated as well as he did, and communications prospered, expanded, and competition burst out all over in the long distance field with this particular standard, and then have a gentleman come in totally green and just write back, just as he got a letter from the chairman who put a hold on his nomination, and said ``I threw that out.'' The Bell Operating Companies tried to throw it out, and they couldn't. They know it because they had already testified in behalf of it. He goes on to say that ``the VIII(c) standard which has barred Bell Operating Company entry into long distance since their divestiture from AT&T, struck me as insufficiently sensitive to the market conditions, and I was concerned that it would bar Bell Operating Company entry even where it would be competitively warranted.'' I want him to describe that. My understanding is that another Senator, my distinguished colleague from North Dakota--and also I was talking to the Senator from Nebraska. And they have talked with the gentleman, Mr. Klein, and have asked him. And he has yet to come and elaborate about what is more ``sensitive.'' He says this is ``insufficiently sensitive.'' We have yet to find another. I have met twice with Joel Klein. And he said I was right. He was there with the Attorney General. He understood, and he would get some ensuing opinion, or letter, or some note that he understood, and he could read the language, and it was going to be corrected. Madam President, let's turn the page and go to Senator Conrad Burns' questions and answers, and go to that question. Here is what Senator Burns questioned, and I quote. In your speech, you use the following terms: ``Real and broad-based competition,'' ``actual broad-based entry,'' ``true broad-based entry,'' ``tangible entry,'' ``large-scale entry,'' and ``entry on a large-scale basis.'' What do those terms mean to the department? And I could read it all. The entire letter has been included. But let me read this last sentence. Thus, in my March 11th speech-- The Acting Attorney General, he knows what we are talking about. He refers to that speech. In my March 11th speech to which you referred, I stated that ``our preference, though we recognize that it may not always occur, is to see actual broad based, that is, business and residential, entry into a local market.'' Now, Madam President, for all of those unstudied in trying cases with lawyers, watch this particular language because it has the regular language and regular print but he highlights with italic the phrase: ``Our preference, though we recognize that it may not always occur.'' Now, that is in italic, not the rest of it. So the distinguished chairman of the communications subcommittee is given a signal. Watch the play. And then comes the play. Madam President, on May 21, the next day, he doesn't delay. Oh, that Acting Attorney General for antitrust that held up for weeks the answer to the Dorgan letter and the Kerrey letter, he was prompt; he answered that letter of Senator Burns in 5 days, gave the signal with the italics. (Mr. BENNETT assumed the Chair.)

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Madam President, it is very interesting. I want to refer back to this because that is in regular type. ``Though we may recognize that it may not always occur''--``though we recognize that it may not always occur.'' We are going to refer back to that in just a few minutes because our distinguished chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, Senator Conrad Burns, of Montana, wrote Mr. Joel Klein on May 15, 1997. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter be printed in the Record in its entirety.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, we had a glowing candidate for the Acting Assistant Attorney General in Joel Klein on March 11, 1997. He went down to a class, a legal work seminar, on March 11, and the title of the seminar was ``Preparing for Competition in a Deregulated Telecommunications Market.'' Joel Klein, on page 9, I read here, and I quote: ``Now let me add a few words about how we will apply this standard to our BOC applications under section 271 of the act. Our preference, though we recognize that it may not always occur, is to see actual broad-based business and residential entry into a local market.'' I ask unanimous consent that this particular speech be printed in the Record in its entirety. So I am not quoting out of context.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I quote the second paragraph: As I said in our discussion, I am committed to promoting competition in every aspect of the telecommunications and information industries. I believe that the legislation should protect and promote diversity of ownership and opinions in the mass media, should protect consumers from unjustified rate increases for cable and telephone services and, in particular, should include a test specifically designed to ensure that the bell companies entering into long distance markets will not impede competition. I emphasize this because I had the charge from the President himself. Now you have the President's nominee coming and refuting all of that, because if you want to know where rates will increase, instead of competition, we are going to get consolidation, and instead of a competitive place in the market, you are going to get fixes all around. This crowd has been operating monopolies for, lo, decades upon decades. They know how to do it. They have a hard time learning. AT&T in the 1980's pared down by a third the size of AT&T after the modified final judgment in 1984. But they made twice the profit after they finally learned how to compete. Our friends, the Bells, have yet to come and learn that. In fact, I strongly advised from these happenings that they have no idea of competing; they have every idea of holding onto the monopoly as long as they can. Madam President, ``If we can get an Assistant Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General''--whatever you want to call Mr. Joel Klein-- ``in our camp, rather we can hold on and continue making out like gangbusters for years to come.'' Now, as a result of the President's letter, we finally have section 271(c)(1)(A) of the Telecommunications Act, and I ask that the statement under ``presence of the facilities-based competitor, including both residential and business subscribers, having a facilities-based competitor for both business and residential''--which was proscribed in this law, and there are no ifs, ands and buts how it is written--I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, just that section is necessary and not the entire act, of course.

Mr. HOLLINGS. This is dated June 20, 1997. Dear Chairman Hunt: I recently read with interest and dismay the Department of Justice's additional comments regarding SBC Communications' application to provide in-region interLATA services in the State of Oklahoma. The department therein clarified its views on section 271(c)(1)(A) of the Communications Act, as amended. As a primary author-- Let me emphasize that. This is Chairman Bliley-- As a primary author of this provision, I feel compelled to inform you that the department misread the statute's plain language. As you rule on SBC's application and future Bell Operating Company applications, you should not overlook the clear meaning of section 271 or its legislative history. The Department argued that a Bell Operating Company should be allowed to enter the in-region interLATA market under track A, that is, section 271(c)(1)(A) if a competing service provides office facilities based services to business customers and resale services to residential customers, so long as the combined provision of both services is predominantly over the competing service provider's facilities. In other words, the Department wrongly takes the view that section 271(c)(1)(A) is satisfied if a competitor is serving either residential or business customers over its own facilities. Section 271(c)(1)(a), however, clearly requires a different interpretation. To quote the statute, ``A competing service provider must offer telephone exchange service to residential and business subscribers either exclusively over their own telephone exchange service facilities or predominantly over their own telephone exchange service facilities. Track A is thus satisfied if and only if a Bell Operating Company faces facilities based competition in both residential and business markets. Neither the statute nor its legislative history permits any other interpretation. I know this because I drafted both texts. Mr. President, that is Chairman Bliley. I do not know how you can make it more clear. He talks of the history. He talks of the conference report. He talks of the actual language. And anybody reading it can see exactly that. In essence, Mr. Klein sort of quietly acknowledged it. I was waiting because I met with him individually and then I met with him with the Attorney General, I can tell you here and now for those who watch this and follow it. And I ask unanimous consent the recent editorial in the New York Times entitled ``A Weak Antitrust Nominee'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, you see every effort has been made to try to clear that record, and you can read the Attorney General's letter, and for the purposes at hand it is not worth the paper it is written on. You can throw it away. It says nothing--that she believes in competition. Now, she is a lawyer. She knows how to read emphasized italics language. She saw the pitch. I told her about the pitch and how it occurred. I showed her the talk that Klein made. We went down the whole thing. So Senator Kerrey, and I understand, of course, Senator Dorgan wrote a letter, and we were waiting for a letter back and we had to wait several weeks. Not the Senator from Montana. His letter and addendum and opinion were all put out immediately. But when Senators who worked on the bill as diligently as we did tried to meet with him and then put down in black and white our misgivings, write the Attorney General's department and ask, please, now, let's see your position here on the plain, clear language, they write back--``I believe in competition.'' Just two pages of nothing. I have that in the Record. Mr. President, I should have, like I say, politicked this nomination for its defeat. Let me ask unanimous consent that the ``Dear Colleague'' letter of July 10 by Senator Dorgan of North Dakota and myself be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. It is not my intent to take further time. I can tell that this was called. I had checked after the last rollcall. They said it wasn't going to be called until after 6 o'clock. When they filed it, they filed cloture immediately before there was any kind of debate whatever. They have not only lost their senses with respect to reality, calling deficits listed in the document as $179.3 billion as balanced, but they have lost their manners and their courtesy. Usually you have the Senator who had the hold and caused the particular confusion put on notice, but I had a staffer watching the TV and saw our friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, was talking. So there we are, just right in the middle. You did not need cloture. At the time we put on a hold and were asked: Do you want to be identified as the one having the hold, I said absolutely. I am not playing games, tricks or anything of that kind. I would be glad if you called it this afternoon. That was weeks ago where I would have a chance to explain exactly what occurred. But, of course, you can see what has occurred. They have politically worked it, got the votes, got cloture. Don't waste time. Let us get on with this. And then when the rates go up, when you get consolidation instead of competition and those rates go up, and you don't get competition in the local market and you don't get what we intended in the Telecommunications Act, don't come around like in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and say it didn't work. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings worked up until 1990 when they went out to Andrews Air Base and they put in the categories and so-called ceilings--we haven't reached those ceilings yet--and repealed the across-the-board cuts, the sequester language. On October 21 at 1:40 a.m. I made the point of order that you are now repealing the thrust of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Today, this afternoon, I am making the same point. You are repealing the competitive feature of the Telecommuncations Act of 1996. I hope the nomination is defeated and we get somebody here who can read. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. And again now on page 3 here the fellow has gotten the signal, and I read on page 3--the entire matter is in the Record. It does not, however, require that each class of customers, business and residential, must be served over a facilities based competitor's own facilities. To the contrary, Congress expressly provided that the competitor may be providing services predominantly over its own facilities in combination with the resale of Bell Operating Company services (47 USC 271 (c)(1)(A)). Thus, it does not matter whether the competitor reaches one class of customers, namely residential, only through resale provided that the competitor's local exchange services as a whole are provided predominantly over its own facilities. Well, Mr. President, there it was. Bell Operating Companies through the distinguished Senator from Montana got what they wanted in black and white. They just totally refuted 4 years of work, the most important part of the checklist, the most important part that provided for competition in the long distance market, the most important part that we included. We talked about it. We discussed it. We debated it. I was in these conferences. They were in the conferences, like I tried to emphasize. The Bell Companies met all one day with our staffs on both sides and the long distance companies met all one day, and it was worked out. But do not take the word of the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the Honorable Reed Hunt, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, from Chairman Tom Bliley, Congressman from Virginia, and chairman of the Commerce Committee over on the House side, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, let me first thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. He has been very, very participatory over the years. It actually took us about 4 years to get the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to a vote. On both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle we had a very, very deliberate discussion and treatment of the particular issues involved. No one understood better the thrust of trying to deregulate and bring about competition than Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. I praise him publicly, once again, for his leadership and the inclusions that he had contained in the final act itself. Referring to that final act, Senator Kerrey tells exactly what is at stake here--this institution. The U.S. Senate seemingly has no historical memory. What we really had on course during the 1960's, 1970's and early 1980's was a terrible monopolistic control of American Telephone & Telegraph. The fact of the matter was that they had some 12 particular rulings by the Federal Communications Commission. But the smart lawyers for the AT&T group would always put those on appeal, seek further delay, further consideration. While there were 12 orders on course at the Federal Communications Commission, mind you me, none of them could get enforced. We were in an outrageous standoff in the courts and at the Commission and, yes, an outrageous standoff in the Congress itself. We could not get a bill passed. They have that much political power. There isn't any question about it. So, a very brilliant and dedicated jurist, Harold Greene of the circuit court here in Washington, DC, took this matter over on a petition from the Justice Department for the AT&T breakup. In 1984, the modified final judgment was handed down and the Bell companies were spun off on their own to begin competition, and AT&T itself was opened up for competition. That wasn't easy. I wish my friend, Bill McGowan of MCI was here because it was 30 years ago, practically, that he, with a little two-floor apartment down in Georgetown, with a little aerial on top and three assistants, started to try to get into long distance. Very interestingly, the Farmer's Home finally gave him a loan. Can you imagine that? Competition started with a Farmer's Home loan. With that little bank, so to speak, he worked and brought some cases, he began nibbling away at the magnificent monopoly of AT&T in long distance. Since that time, of course, the long distance market has opened up. You've got MCI, Sprint, GTE, and the Brits are coming in, and the Germans, and all are participating--the Canadians, and otherwise. And so you have a very dynamic long distance market. However, the monopolies at the local level persisted, and those monopolies were intended for the ``public convenience and necessity''-- that is a phrase hardly heard in the halls of our National Government-- in order for the advantages, the services, the opportunity, the advancements to be brought onto the market and enjoyed by the public, we instituted the Federal Communications Commission. We had the old rulings coming out with respect to getting licenses to carry, and otherwise, at the State level, at ``public convenience and necessity.'' And we intentionally gave these seven Bell operating companies a monopoly. We said: You provide the services and we will protect you so that you are not bothered with the competition. On the contrary, if you get those services to the people, we will give you a profit that averages around 12 percent. Sometimes, in hearings, it went above that. You find them now to have made one heck of a lot of money. But my crowd is down in Buenos Aires, and I just read this past week that Bell South is investing in Brazil, which has some 20 million people. That is way more than the 3.6 million that we have in my little State of South Carolina. So more power to them. They have been well-operated. They have that monopoly. That was a big headache that we had in trying to bring about deregulation, deregulation, deregulation. This crowd up here in the House and Senate have no idea of the struggle that we had and the expertise that went into the drafting of this particular Telecommunications Act of 1996, to make sure that that monopolistic control, that checkpoint, that bottleneck, that choke- point was broken up, so that competition really could ensue. And we had what we call the ``checklist.'' And I can see that being worked on late nights around the clock, over Thanksgiving holidays, working, of course, with the Bell operating companies, we would meet--I forgot my days now-- there was one on Friday and long distance on Monday. The long distance may have been on Friday and the Bell operating companies on Monday. But I set up a system, those years back, as the chairman of the Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation, whereby everything would be operated on top of the table. We would bring all sides in. They would all be considered and they would be told where we were and what we were negotiating and why. I deemed that nothing was going to be done, because there were all kinds of attempts during the 1970's and 1980's--and I had learned from hard experience that you had to have a bipartisan bill and you had to have all the parties in, and no last minute surprises, or anything of that kind. So credit must be given to the various staffs on the Republican and Democratic sides, working around the clock, to fathom the particular provisions that are in issue in this particular appointment. I know that some don't want to hear, and others don't care and they don't listen to this particular background. But it is a very interesting thing because it was worked out and finally voted upon by 95 Republican and Democratic Senators when it passed. There was a strong majority over on the House side. It was a bill that, interestingly, when we finally agreed in December of 1995, our distinguished friend, the Vice President of the United States, heard that we in conference had gotten an agreement, and he came on the NBC Evening News program right in the middle of the news program. I happened to be listening when I had gotten back to the office. What occurred was that Tom Brokaw said, ``Wait a minute, ladies and gentlemen, we have a newsbreak from the Vice President of the United States.'' I was worried that something may have occurred to the President, but it was not that at all. He came on and said, ``We finally got my information superhighway agreed upon and I got everything I wanted. Well, this was December 1995, right after that 1994 election. Speaker Gingrich on the House side said, ``If he got everything he wanted, that bill is deader than Elvis.'' The leader on the Senate side, Senator Robert Dole, said, ``I am not going to call it.'' Of course, I had the duty, during the ensuing weeks through into Christmas and Christmas week, and all through the month of January, of holding the line. I describe that to my colleagues because I want them to know that every little thing in that bill was worked out with everyone and to their satisfaction and, finally, of course, to the Speaker and the Majority Leader Dole, because the bills were called in February of last year and passed both Houses and were signed by the President. Now, in coming about the breakup of the monopolies, to make sure-- because you can't get competition going unless the Bell companies go along. I can tell you here and now, if I ran a monopoly, I would continue investing in Buenos Aires and all like that for my stockholders, and what have you, and making money, and just hold on and appeal and drag feet and everything else. Let me emphasize that is just exactly what has happened, why this particular nomination ought to really be rejected. It is a sort of sad day when you work as hard as you do to get something done for the administration, and the administration sends up an appointment of this kind that upsets the entire apple cart. Let me tell you, Madam President, here it is, just last weekend, ``MCI Widens Local Market; Loss Estimate,'' in the July 11 Wall Street Journal. Some $800 million--saying its losses from entering that business could total $800 million this year, more than double its original estimate. Why? Because here is an analysis right here again in the Wall Street Journal, over the weekend, when they announced that their shares dropped 17 percent. I only quote Chris Mines, senior analyst of Forester Research, Inc., in Cambridge, MA, who said, ``MCI's complaints are totally justified. In general, I think local carriers are dragging their feet, using every means at their disposal to protect their monopolies.'' Now, Madam President, it is just not the news articles in the Wall Street Journal. Take this week's Business Week magazine, on page 33, ``Why SBC Shouldn't be the First Bell in Long Distance.'' Rather than reading the entire article, little squibs encapsulate those reasons. ``How SBC keeps rivals away: one, excess charges. AT&T needed customized routing to provide directory assistance to its customers in SBC's territory. SBC's initial quote is $300 million. AT&T says other Bells charge $1 million to $2 million.'' That is rather than the $300 million. So it is perfectly obvious that they sit there and make this outrageous charge and that holds up everything. You get Senators running around, ``I don't know what is the matter with our bill. We want to open up the market. Let market forces operate.'' You have monopolies determined. Here is another reason here how SBC keeps rivals away. ``In Oklahoma, competitors must pay $19.13 per line for SBC's unbundled network, but SBC's retail rates are $14.34 a month.'' So, if they are going to charge 20 percent again more than anybody coming in the market, anybody coming in the market is going broke, and there is a loss by another long distance carrier. AT&T is trying to get in this market. MCI is trying to get in the other long distance market. They are losing already $800 million trying to just break it. Third, legal attacks. How SBC keeps rivals away. Legal attacks. SBC has appealed even basic decisions by State regulators. For example, SBC appealed a Texas decision to let Teleport Communications Group provide competing local service. SBC contends Teleport had not met State standards. Madam President, I cite this from this particular article because it's momentary, it's timely. What really happens is not just MCI and AT&T, but others in these monopolies, with their lawyers, are bringing cases to test the constitutionality of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The one thing they said, ``Let's stop the bickering. Can't we work in a bipartisan nature and get things done?'' The one thing done this past Congress on a bipartisan basis was a 95 to 4 vote for the Telecommunications Act of 1996--totally bipartisan. I think those things ought to be understood and how they came about, and how long and hard we worked over them. Now, in getting about this particular task, I communicated with President Clinton and the White House and asked him if he could note in a letter just exactly what his concerns were. I want to make sure staff gets copies of every one of these because they are not getting my file. And every time I get ready to talk, I just need a few notes. I can't even get a few notes. They are back there hidden away. So you get your copies. Remember this: I have a White House letter, Madam President, dated October 26, 1995, from President Clinton. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I support S. 961, the administration's bill to reauthorize appropriations for the National Rail Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak. Amtrak is a necessary part of a national transportation system. It has demonstrated its popularity with the traveling public and, more importantly, its ability to provide safe, efficient transportation at reasonable prices. My South Carolina constituents have made it quite clear that they want Amtrak to prosper, and wish it expanded, not terminated or forced to operate under unreasonable restrictions or reduced to the status of a regional railroad. The citizens of South Carolina and the Nation demand a first class rail passenger transportation service. This is Amtrak's mission, and its promise. S. 961 puts Amtrak on the path to fulfilling that promise. The bill concentrates on what is important, the operational and financial viability of Amtrak, and is not diverted from its goal by including provisions that are divisive and will not save Amtrak significant money or allow it to maximize its revenues. Specifically, S. 961 does not include a provision which would impose so-called caps on the punitive damages available to passengers involved in accidents while aboard Amtrak trains. Other bills which purport to aid Amtrak would cap punitive damages to twice compensatory damages or $250,000, whichever is greater. While I understand the necessity of any business to reduce costs, placing liability caps against passengers will not significantly improve Amtrak's bottom line. The General Accounting Office's (GAO) highest estimate of savings from such caps is less than one percent of Amtrak's capital funding needs. Moreover, the provision ignores the value of punitive damages to the public. With punitive damages a possibility, Amtrak has the incentive to properly train its personnel, invest in safe equipment, and reward safe operations. Finally, such a provision is unnecessary. Punitive damages have never been awarded against Amtrak. S. 961 puts the emphasis where it should be, on authorizing appropriations of $5 billion for Amtrak over the next six years. It is this money that is needed to fund Amtrak operations, equipment purchases, much needed capital improvements, and expanded services, not the small amount any liability cap will provide the rail carrier. We would all like to avoid paying Government subsidies for this service, but we cannot ignore that the provision of transportation infrastructure is a necessary function of Government, whether involving highways, bridges, airports, mass transit, or rail. It should be noted that a 1994 study of central government subsidies of rail transportation showed that U.S. subsidy levels are 35th in the world, well below those of Europe. S. 961 also avoids the unnecessary controversy brought about by an effort to provide indemnification for freight railroads over whose tracks Amtrak largely operates. Some argue that freight railroads need protection from accidents between their trains and Amtrak trains. Whatever the merits of indemnifying particular freight railroads in particular cases, what has been proposed in several bills is the complete indemnification of any freight railroad for any accident, regardless of cause or fault. In other words, if a freight railroad employee acts intentionally or with gross negligence and causes an accident, Amtrak would pay for that accident, most likely with tax dollars paid by the American people. The American people would be forced to pay for the mistakes of a multi-million dollar private corporation. This is indefensible. In 1987, a Conrail engineer, after smoking marijuana, drinking beer, and disabling safety equipment, ran his Conrail locomotives into the rear of an Amtrak train near Chase, MD. The disaster cost 16 lives and 175 injuries. In the resulting litigation, a court found the conduct of the engineer to involve gross negligence. The accident cost $130 million. If the full indemnification provision had been in effect at that time, Amtrak, which was completely blameless, would have been required to pay all of the damages associated with that accident. Amtrak would have had to pay the cost of an accident beyond its control and that it was powerless to prevent. There is no more potent example of the unfairness of such a provision. One other unacceptable provision that was wisely omitted from S. 961 is a so-called sunset trigger provision. Unfortunately, such a provision is contained in S. 738, the Amtrak bill recently ordered reported by the Commerce Committee. The provision establishes a new Amtrak Reform Council [ARC] to investigate Amtrak's financial condition, make a determination of Amtrak's ability to meet its financial goals, and present a report on Amtrak's condition to the Congress. If the ARC determination is negative, Amtrak is required to prepare a liquidation plan and the ARC is required to prepare a plan for restructuring Amtrak. Both plans are sent to Congress and if, within 90 days, the Congress does not enact the restructuring plan, the liquidation plan must be implemented. Thus, to kill Amtrak, any action to save it need only be delayed by its congressional opponents for 3 months. Under this provision, Amtrak could be liquidated without either House of Congress taking any responsibility by voting for or against the liquidation plan. There would not have to be any debate in Congress on Amtrak or the liquidation plan. No questions of Amtrak's worth or importance and no indication of the consequences of eliminating Amtrak would have to be addressed. A transportation program of vital importance to millions of Americans would be eliminated without another word. This is nothing more than Congress evading its responsibilities and should not be allowed. S. 961 is the right approach. We should insist that Amtrak run its operations in a business-like, efficient manner. And we should conduct vigorous oversight. However, we should not complicate its authorization legislation with extraneous provisions, and any decision to discontinue passenger rail service in this country must be made in full view and with complete information on the economic and social costs of doing so.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. He writes: Dear Fritz: I enjoyed our telephone conversation today regarding the upcoming conference on the telecommunications reform bill and would like to follow up on your request regarding the specific issues of concern to me as proposed legislation. I am reading just part of it now. As I said in our discussion, I am committed to promoting competition in every aspect of the telecommunications and information industries. I believe that the legislation should protect and promote diversity of ownership and opinions in the mass media, should protect consumers from unjustified rate increases for cable and telephone services, and in particular, should include a test specifically designed to ensure that the Bell companies entering into long distance markets will not impede competition. Now, Mr. President, that is why we wrote 271 the way we wrote it. That is why we wrote it that way. There isn't any question, as the chairman has said, this is bipartisan. This isn't because some Senator is enraged or upset or something else like that. I have been here long enough to get enraged or upset. I have seen a lot of good ones go through and several bad ones. I thought having participated on the ground and worked for 4 years in getting this formative act that was voted on by 95 U.S. Senators--they voted on this particular language when it passed this particular body. They understand not only that this isn't just a singular mistake, we have the proposition of the gentleman, Mr. Klein, also coming forward and disregarding entirely, gratuitously, and summarily throwing out the VIII(c) test, which I will have time to refer to on here later on. My point here is that we really worked hard to get participation. There were those who didn't want the antitrust provision. They wanted one-stop shopping at the Federal Communications Commission. We worked hard to make sure that this was done right. We realized many times that they don't have antitrust lawyers like Reed Hundt, who is now the Chairman and understands the law, and you necessarily don't have antitrust lawyers coming in as members and commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission. So to give emphasis to opening up the market for free and open competition, we put in the antitrust provisions in there for its opinion to be provided to the Federal Communications Commission. We worked hard to provide it. We worked diligently on the VIII(c) test, which was Judge Greene's test for over 12 years now in the breakup of AT&T, and every one of the Bell Operating Companies attested to that particular language. And here comes the particular nominee casting aside, in a gratuitous fashion, that requirement, on the one hand, and changing over the statute just on a letter from a Senator, on the other hand. When you have that kind of weak nominee, you have thwarted the intent of the Congress and the President of the United States and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was an historic achievement of bipartisan consensus. The act was intended to promote competition in every sector of the communications industry, including the broadcast, cable, wireless, long distance, local telephone, manufacturing, pay telephone, electronic publishing, cable equipment, and direct broadcast satellite industries. At the time of its passage, the law had the support of the Clinton administration and almost every sector of the communications industry. Mr. President, the Telecommunications Act was the result of many years of debate in the Congress. In 1991, I authored legislation to allow the Regional Bell Operating Companies [RBOC's] into manufacturing. That bill passed the Senate by almost two-thirds of the Senate, but the House could not pass it. In 1993 I introduced S. 1822 which was a comprehensive effort to update the Communications Act of 1934. Again, we tried to pass the legislation, but at each stage, one industry blocked the other. As a result, communications policy was set by the courts, not by Congress and not by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC], the expert agency. It is now almost 18 months after the historic law was passed and critics are already hailing it as a failure because of recent mergers and the apparent lack of competition. In actuality we will not know the impact of the law for years to come. Yet a critical factor that will determine its success has more to do with how the law is being enforced than what the statutory language says. First, it is important to note that many of the decisions we made were based on the commitment that the respective industries were going to compete against each other. Telephone companies were going to enter the cable television market. The cable industry was going to enter the local telephone service market. And long distance companies would enter the local telephone service market. Now, 18 months later, we're seeing more of the opposite. But I am not ready to simply blame the industry for deciding not to compete. Everyone knows that it's more natural for monopolies to defend their market share than to willingly give it up. Furthermore, competition can only occur if the new competitors are provided the legal and economic opportunity to compete for market share. Thus, the success of the law depends upon its implementation and oversight. One major element of the implementation is the rules adopted by the FCC. The FCC has been working nonstop for the past 18 months to adopt rules to implement the law. I have some concerns about how the FCC has interpreted certain provisions, and I have been working with the FCC on those issues. One problem, though, has been that the rules themselves are not in effect because these same companies that pledged competition have instead sought consolidation and litigation. An example of why vigorous enforcement of the act is necessary is reflected in the difficulty new entrants are experiencing in trying to enter the local telephone market. Financial reports today detail MCI's problems that it faces in trying to break into the local telephone market. MCI will record approximately $800 million in losses this year--almost double its expected loss. AT&T also wrote to the FCC outlining the need for greater enforcement of the act if new entrants are to be successful in trying to enter the local market. Three of the FCC's major rulemakings are now tied up in the courts. The interconnection rules have been stayed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals since last fall. The universal service rules and access charge rules also were recently challenged in the courts. The list goes on with a number of other proceedings being tied up in the courts. The most outrageous example thus far is last week's announcement that SBC, the Bell Telephone Co. for the Southwestern United States, is challenging the constitutionality of the statute itself--18 months later! It is important to note that SBC already has merged with Pacific Bell and almost merged with AT&T. At the same time SBC was trying to merge with AT&T, it was seeking to enter the long distance market to supposedly compete with AT&T. SBC was denied in its initial request to enter the long distance market, so instead of challenging the FCC decision, SBC simply decided to seek continued protection from the courts. The irony, of course, is that for 10 years, the telecommunications industry argued that the courts should not administer communications policy. With all this litigation going on, it's no wonder the media believes the law was a failure. I think it's time we focused more on why there appears to be more consolidation than competition. Also, I think the Congress needs to be more attentive to whether the administration's nominees support the policies advocated by the administration during consideration of the legislation. Let there be no doubt that much of the competition provisions were combined with a transition to greater deregulation. In exchange for less regulation, there had to be competition to protect consumers. That is not happening. Competition and deregulation were all we heard on the floor of the Senate, but all we're now seeing is consolidation and deregulation without the competition. It doesn't appear that some in the administration today share the same views about competition as the administration did in 1995 when the law was being debated. Because the litigation strategy of some incumbents appears to have prevented competitors from entering the various markets, the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice is now tasked with a far greater role than anyone envisioned. But the nominee before us today has made certain statements and taken certain actions in his acting capacity that concern me greatly. His actions raise further concern with the direction of the administration's policies with respect to its interpretation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I believe that these issues need clarification before Mr. Klein's nomination should be brought to a vote in the Senate. Whether or not robust competition develops in the local telephone service market depends upon the administration's commitment to vigorous enforcement of the act. Unfortunately, while serving as Acting Chief of the Antitrust Division, Mr. Klein has explicitly contradicted specific statutory mandates and conference report directions that the Congress, working with the White House, fought against all odds to have added to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Several Members have asked Mr. Klein, Attorney General Reno, and the White House about these concerns and have asked them to demonstrate that the Antitrust Division will follow the explicit meaning of the Telecommunications Act. So far, there has not been a satisfactory response to our concerns. Mr. President, with respect to my colleague in discussing the character of Mr. Klein, there is no question about Mr. Klein being of the highest character and integrity. But what really occurs, Mr. President, and I have had to respond to a lot of calls from good friends, it was not his character but his ability, even though he is a smart lawyer, to administer the law as written. There is no question in my mind that, of course, you have those who believe in weak antitrust. We went through that in the Reagan years. I have been the chairman of the State, Justice, Commerce Subcommittee of appropriations for the Antitrust Division, and during those particular years the Reagan administration cared less whether we had antitrust. To the credit of the distinguished wife of our distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Anne Bingaman, came in there and we really beefed up the department, and we even brought to task none other than Bill Gates of the computer world. So when you can do that you know you have a good antitrust head in power. When I saw this particular gentleman take over it gave me misgivings. Right to the point, as the newspaper said, from the very beginning when I put my hold on this particular nomination, I said I would be glad to discuss it that afternoon, I was not going to politic it around, I have other work to do. But as a matter of conscience, I thought I ought to bring these things to the attention of my colleagues. There is no better place to look at the nominee than this particular New York Times editorial entitled ``A Weak Antitrust Nominee.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I see another Senator wishing to talk. But, Mr. President, there it is. Here we have a Deputy Attorney General nominee that is not going to carry out President Clinton's policy, nor the language of the statute. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from President Clinton to me on October 26, 1995.