Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of an article I wrote for the Washington Post Outlook section be printed and that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of an article I wrote for the Washington Post Outlook section be printed and that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1218, the Oceans and Human Health Act, legislation being considered by the Senate today. This bill, which Senator Stevens and I introduced last year, was reported unanimously from the Commerce Committee, will spur the development of an exciting new field of research, one that explores the role of the oceans in human health. Senators Inouye, Breaux, Kerry, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Lautenberg, DeWine, Levin, and Kennedy have all lent their considerable support to the bill as cosponsors. I am also pleased to have worked closely with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee, Senators Judd Gregg and Ted Kennedy, in crafting the final manager's amendment to the bill. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, established pursuant to the Oceans Act of 2000, is poised to issue its draft report with recommendations for a new national ocean policy. The draft report is likely to recommend increased Federal support for integrated and innovative ocean research initiatives such as in oceans and human health in order to focus attention on the increasingly complex interaction between humans and the sea. The Cceans and Human Health Act would establish a national interagency program that will coordinate research into oceans and human health and ensure the availability of an adequate Federal investment in this critical area. It also would authorize such a program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to strengthen its work in this important field of study. Throughout history, society has turned to the oceans for food, transport, commerce and recreation. This tremendous resource has enriched and sustained our existence. It is no coincidence that today, over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives in the coastal zone, and this number is increasing. In addition, over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade moves through our Nation's ports and this volume is expected to more than double by 2020. Our oceans are inextricably linked to our personal and economic well-being. In recent years, the rich biodiversity of the world's seas has generated considerable interest. Scientists believe the oceans represent a promising source of novel compounds with therapeutic and/or disease-fighting capabilities. A 1999 National Research Council report, ``From Monsoons to Microbes,'' noted that nature has been the traditional source of new pharmaceuticals and found that over half of marketed drugs are extracted or produced from natural sources. Our oceans account for over 80 percent of the planet's biological productivity, yet little of it has been catalogued or studied. At present, there are only three marine compounds in clinical use--and these were developed in the 1950s. While there are some new compounds in the pipeline, we need to speed research efforts to ensure we get more products approved. I am encouraged by research suggesting that sea sponges contain compounds which show promise in treating pancreatic cancer. And recently, a scientist analyzing a water sample from the Sargasso Sea, off Bermuda, discovered at least 1,800 new microbial species and more than 1.2 million genes in that sample. Imagine what new drug discoveries await researchers and the medical community. Pioneering scientists are also needed to tackle marine environmental issues that affect human and marine life alike, such as ocean pollution and marine pathogens. Our marine resources are under growing environmental stresses. Signs of these stresses include ``dead zones,'' loss of coastal wetlands, changes in ocean salinity, contamination of fish and marine life, and increases in extreme weather events associated with global climate change. Over the past 2 weeks, over 60 dolphin carcasses have been found along Florida's panhandle beaches and bays. Preliminary test results point to one or more biotoxins that are associated with red tides. Certain biotoxins have been known to produce eye and respiratory irritation in humans. Dolphins are an important indicator species of environmental pollution and their unusually high mortality rates in Florida raise the issue of potential risks to human health. Because oceans act as a route of exposure for human disease through ingestion of contaminated seafood or direct contact with saltwater containing toxins and disease-causing organisms, it is vital that we learn more about how public health is affected by the marine environment. We must ensure that the sea maintains its capacity to sustain itself without becoming a ``dead zone.'' We must find ways to monitor and reduce the occurrence of ocean toxins that kill marine mammals and taint seafood. As with cancer, our goal must be understanding and prevention, rather than relying exclusively on treatment. Many research programs and laboratories perform research and related activities that could contribute significantly to a national research effort, but such efforts have not always realized their potential. To be successful, research into oceans and human health must integrate disciplines, bringing together oceanographers and biomedical researchers to better understand marine processes, reduce public health risks and enhance our biomedical capabilities. The Oceans and Human Health initiative recently established at NOAA, and a joint program between the National Science Foundation, NSF, and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, already show tremendous promise, and this legislation provides further support for a coordinated Federal effort. The NIEHS and NSF initiative provides $6 million annually to establish centers of excellence focusing on harmful algal blooms, water and vectorborne diseases, and marine pharmaceuticls and probes. In addition, we provided NOAA with appropriations of $8 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and $10 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for an oceans and human health initiative focused on strengthening important oceans and human health research within NOAA's areas of focus, including health coasts and marine life. Within NOAA, an interdisciplinary and medically oriented approach to ocean research can be found at two marine laboratories in Charleston, SC. The NOAA labs have partnered with the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the State of South Carolina, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the College of Charleston and are on the front lines of discovery and prevention, particularly in the emerging field of marine genomics. They are hard at work on todays' important public and marine environmental health issues. For instance, they are conducting research into dolphin health that will for the first time utilize a traditional medical approach to help us learn more about the health of dolphins in the wild. This NOAA research collaboration epitomizes the variety of important disciplines that must work side by side if we are to make progress in understanding the connections between oceans and human health. It is home to cutting-edge research involving algal toxins, natural products with potential pharmaceutical applications, and viral and bacterial pathogens that cause disease in marine animals, with potential links to human illness, disease processes and natural product chemistry. The scientists use unique medical tools such as nuclear magnetic resonators to help map the cellular and genetic structure of marine organisms and have developed methods for detecting pesticides in water, sediments, fish, and marine mammals that may potentially affect both the health of the marine environment and human health. The scientists are also developing exposure, toxicology and disease models to assess pollution's effects on a variety of marine organisms. Their work will better define ocean health and bridge the gap with existing human health models. Taken together, the NIEHS-NSF and NOAA research initiatives offer an excellent basis for building a comprehensive national program. In addition, a number of other Federal agencies are poised to make significant contributions. The Oceans and Human Health Act provides the legislative framework for coordinated, national investment to improve understanding of marine ecosystems, address marine public health problems and tap into the ocean's potential contribution to new biomedical treatments and advances. At the heart of this legislation--and key to its success--is our commitment to building new partnerships among Federal health, science and ocean agencies, diverse scientific disciplines, and academic researchers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a more detailed summary of the legislation printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am extremely proud to sponsor this legislation, and hope that this will mark the beginning of a new century of ocean research that will reveal how integral and important the oceans are to our daily lives and our health, whether we live by the edge of the sea or in the heartland.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, yesterday South Carolina lost a valuable public servant and I lost a very dear friend. Some 66 years ago John Carl West and I came to the Citadel as freshmen. The attention of the freshmen in those days was responding to the howling orders of the upperclassmen. But it wasn't long before John came to my attention. We both had COL Carl Coleman in political science and Colonel Coleman loved those Time magazine articles on public events. He would spring them on the class with a test. I would barley know half of the answers, but John Carl would get 100 every time. I felt I ought to pay closer attention to the smartest in a class of 525. In those days, at different heights, we were in different companies and different barracks, but we got thrown together on the Roundtable in the International Relations Club. I learned quickly that John was not only the academician but long on common sense. Along with the other members of our class, John and I both left for the war shortly after graduation, but we ended up in the same class at the University of South Carolina Law School after the war. I got home the day after Thanksgiving in 1945 and Dean Friersen allowed that I could audit the classes and take the exams in January and if I passed them then I could be considered a law school student. Many in the class furnished me their notes, most notably John West. By January the 17th I was through the first semester and by May already through the first year. John and I and others marched on the legislature so that we veterans could continue in the summer and by August the following year I was through a 3-year course in less than 2 years. But I couldn't keep up with John. He was in a bigger rush, passing the bar exam before graduation, teaching at the university and forming a law partnership. I used to kid him that I was catching up when in one election he was running for the State Senate and I was running for Lieutenant Governor. I carried Kershaw County by 1,200 votes and he became the Kershaw County Senator by three. John was more or less my lawyer when I was Governor. As a young Governor I needed help. My strong suit was that I knew the general assembly intimately, having been the presiding officer in both houses, so I had a three-man committee in the house with Floyd Spence, Rex Carter and Bob McNair, and a three-man committee on the senate side with Billy Goldberg, Marshall Parker and John West. West was astute and could immediately point the conflicts in a different way to get things done. This house-senate group would, off the record, vet all of my initiatives. Working together, most all of them got done and not a single veto was overridden in that 4-year period. When West ran for Governor, South Carolina faced its toughest and most heated political choice. The school discrimination decision had hit with full force and so had racial politics. The school busses were being overturned. I had already been elected twice to the U.S. Senate and so I could give my schoolhood friend some help. South Carolina was lucky that John West became the Governor. He didn't mind using his political capital to get things done. John moved immediately to set a course for racial harmony in South Carolina with the appointment of James Clyburn as the head of the Human Relations Committee. The Clyburn decisions on the most sensitive situations had the full force and support of Governor West. A new day and a new direction for the State was set. The same was true with labor. A flood of industry had commenced by 1971 and the resistance of national labor was hitting the work force and communities of the State. Again, Governor West responded with the appointment of Ed McGowan, backing him up 100 percent. In the field of mental health, Governor West again set the tone and direction of mental illness treatment in South Carolina. Working with his brilliant wife, Lois, the cottage system in mental health clinics was launched, which today still makes South Carolina a forerunner in mental illness treatment. But I guess it was John's appointment as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia that brought out the unique combination of personality and brilliance. I know the Arabs I--invaded Algeria and Tunisia in World War II and the tribal way of life was next to impossible. To form national policy and protect the United States interests with one of these countries isn't easy. The Kingdom felt that not only was John West close to President Carter, but he was almost family. He handled the knottiest problems with the greatest of ease. I used to kid him on several occasions, as he handled difficult problems, that that was the Arab blood in him. At the end of all these important political offices John didn't retire. He maintained a vital interest in everything effecting the State of South Carolina. Like me, many would continue to call on him to see what John thought about a situation and he readily gave of his time and leadership. He had instituted a Chair in International Studies at the Citadel, continued to instruct political science at the University of South Carolina and on national problems was always conversant and wise. Many at home didn't realize the events of Washington, but John was my best read friend as well as my best friend. The truth is, he is the best friend that South Carolina ever had.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Budget Committee. His hard work in highlighting shortcomings in the President's budget is truly commendable. As my friend from North Dakota states, I feel it is important to recognize the need for adequate funding for Amtrak. Earlier this year, the Senate passed S. 1072, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004, SAFE-TEA, which reauthorized many Federal surface transportation programs. As part of that reauthorization package, we authorized $2 billion per year for Amtrak for 6 years. The Senate recognized that funding for Amtrak is a priority. Rail travel provides passengers an alternative to air travel and driving, and the benefits are numerous. Ridership on Amtrak trains totaled over 24 million last year. I am certain we will not allow funding for this important service to fall below adequate levels requested by Amtrak President and CEO David Gunn, who has made such great progress recently. It is important that we maintain the critical momentum he has established.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will address the most important subject we have confronting us in this country. It is brought about by a headline yesterday in the Los Angeles Times, ``Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.'' I know the distinguished Presiding Officer, as well as this particular Senator, was shocked to see that. But it is the truth. It is unfortunate because of the policy of this particular body, the Senate, we are as guilty as the President of the United States. I hear my colleagues weeping and wailing, how could he say such a thing? Heavens above, how could you pass fast track? It's just shipping jobs overseas faster. There's all this free trade, free trade whining; all of this level the playing field, level the playing field but we're shipping jobs overseas. What really happens is the distinguished President--I don't know what his situation is with respect to being AWOL in the National Guard, but I make a categorical statement--and many others are AWOL from the trade war. Now let's talk about the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, the terrorism war, but more than anything else, a trade war. Senator, let me tell you how to start one. It was in the earliest States, the colonies that are great forefathers started. That is the greatest generation. We sit around here, a few of us, veterans from World War II being called the greatest generation. But the real heroes are not here. The real greatest generation was Madison and Jefferson and Washington and Hamilton and Adams. That was the real great generation of our time. The colonies had just won their freedom when the mother country corresponded back and proposed exactly what we hear today, economists running around all over the land yelling ``comparative advantage.'' Today, we read in the Los Angeles Times article about the comparative advantage. But the doctrine started with David Ricardo, when the British suggested what to do is trade back to the mother country what you produce best--your comparative advantage--and they will trade back with you what they produce best. Free trade, free trade, free trade. Alexander Hamilton wrote a little booklet, ``Report On Manufacturers.'' I say to the Senator, there is one copy in the Library of Congress. I have been allowed to make a copy of it, but that is the only original copy I know of. But, in any event, rather than wasting the time of putting it in the Record here, in a line, Hamilton told the British: Bug off. We are not going to remain your colonies, shipping to you the rice, the cotton, the indigo, the timber, the iron ore, and the natural produce of the land, and continue to import the manufacturing. There was a law before we won our freedom that you could not erect a manufacturing plant in the Colonies. It was against the law to produce. Oh, yes. So how do you start a trade war? On July 4, 1789, the second measure that passed the Congress in its history--the first was the Seal of the United States--but the second, on July 4, 1789, was a tariff bill. It was protectionism. It was a 50-percent tariff on over 60 articles. That is how we started to build up our economic strength. Our economic strength, I say to the Senator, is the vital leg in the three-legged stool of a nation's security. You have the one leg of a nation's values. That was unquestioned until we started preemptive wars. But we are known the world around--they do not hate us. They do not like this policy, but they do not hate Americans. I have traveled the world for the last 37 years, and I can tell you they love America. They revere our stand for individual freedom, democracy, and human rights. We have sacrificed the world around; and we still are. We have, counting in Afghanistan and Iraq and Kuwait, 14 peacekeeping forces around the world right now. So we have sacrificed. But there is no sacrifice for this war in Iraq back home, and there is no sacrifice in this Congress. We need a tax cut so we can get reelected. So we tell the poor fellow in downtown Baghdad: We hope you don't get killed. And we really hope you don't get killed because we want you to hurry back so we can give you the bill. But, in any event, the second leg is the military, unquestioned as the world's superpower. We have the fine soldiers we have deployed in both Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in those peacekeeping outfits. More particularly, the economic leg, that third leg is what has been fractured. Now how did we build it up? How do you build an economy? Every country in the world is engaged in this trade war. You have to compete. You have to protect your economic interests. After the forefathers came Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party. When they came to President Lincoln and said: We are going to build the transcontinental railroad, and we are going to get steel, he said: We are not going to get the steel from Britain. We are going to build our own steel mills. When they were completed, they not only had a transcontinental railroad but a steel capacity under Abraham Lincoln. In the darkest days of the Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt protected America's agriculture. It is still the envy the world around. But we put in import quotas, subsidies for agriculture, and they should be protected unless we want to lose that. They jump all over poor Trade Representative Zoellick. He finally got a free trade agreement with Australia. There were exemptions--dairy exemptions, farm exemptions. You get what you can. We don't have just one agreement and that is the end of the world. If you cannot get an agreement with Australia, our best ally--and their standard of living, they have labor rights, environmental rights galore in Australia--if we cannot get a free trade agreement with that group, we are not going to get a free trade agreement with anybody. So we got it. I would support that because we have the same standard of living. Not only President Roosevelt, but Dwight David Eisenhower was a protectionist. He put on oil import quotas--back in the mid-1950s. And John Fitzgerald Kennedy--he had import quotas on textiles. He had a seven-point program to protect textiles. I helped write it. I can see me down in the press room now with Pierre Salinger and Andy Hatcher, the assistant in the press room in the White House. I will give you an original copy of the seven-point program. But we saved, with the multifiber arrangement, textile production in America until we started giving it away willy-nilly in yarn. We gave away $2 billion to Turkey in Desert Storm. We gave away $1 billion here and $1 billion there. They continue with the African, the Caribbean agreements, and everywhere else. President Reagan came down to South Carolina, and he committed to protect textiles. We passed the textile bill through the House and the Senate just to enforce the multifiber agreement. He vetoed it. We passed it under ``Papa'' Bush through the House and the Senate just to enforce the multifiber agreement, and ``Papa'' Bush, who had committed to textiles, vetoed it. They keep coming in to Greenville, SC, promising, promising anything during an election. I have to come up here to Washington and watch them go back on their promises. So don't give me any of this stuff about protectionism. Let me tell you, fair and square, we are in a trade war. That is how you build up your economic strength. Before you open your front door, I say to the Senator from Vermont, for ``Jeffords Manufacturing,'' you will need to pay minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. You will need to have clean air, clean water, plant closing notice, parental leave, safe working place, safe machinery--I can keep going down the list. So what happens? You can go to China and open a plant for 58 cents an hour--and none of that, none of that. Still, let's talk ``cents.'' If your competition goes, you have to go. If you continue to work your own people, you go bankrupt. So, you see, they have given dignity to this dilemma with this headline: Supports the Jobs Overseas. We in the Congress are responsible for setting the trade policy. We are the guilty parties around here. We have to change the culture and say: Don't worry about this free trade and that you might start a trade war. We are in the war. We started unilaterally disarming for a wonderful purpose after World War II. Let me tell you where we were before World War II. This is the most interesting thing because this is not a politician speaking. This is none other than the famous author Edmund Morris in ``Theodore Rex.'' I will just read you a few short paragraphs about where we were at the turn of the century. I am quoting from ``Theodore Rex'': The first year of the new century found her worth twenty- five billion more than her nearest rival, Great Britain, with a gross national product more than twice that of Germany and Russia. The United States was already so rich in goods and services that she was more self-sustaining than any industrial power in history. Indeed, it could only consume a fraction of what it produced. The rest went overseas at prices other exporters found hard to match. As Andrew Carnegie said, ``the nation that makes the cheapest steel has other nations at its feet.'' More than half of the world's cotton, corn, copper, and oil flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one third of all steel, iron, silver and gold. Even if the United States were not so blessed with raw materials, the excellence of her manufactured products guaranteed her dominance of the world markets. Current advertisements in the British magazines gave the impression that the typical Englishman woke to the ring of an Ingersoll alarm, shaved with a Gillette razor, combed his hair with Vaseline tonic, buttoned his Arrow shirt, hurried downstairs for Quaker Oats, California figs, Maxwell House coffee, commuted in a Westinghouse tram (body by Fisher) rose to his office in an Otis elevator and worked all day with his Waterman pen under the efficient glare of Edison lightbulbs. ``It only remains,'' one Fleet Street wag suggested, ``for [us] to take American coal to Newcastle.'' Behind the joke lay real concerns. The United States was already supplying beer to Germany, pottery to Bohemia, and oranges to Valencia. Now we import all of it. And why? Because at the end of World War II, in order to prosper, we had to spread prosperity, the Marshall plan. We sent over not just the money of the Marshall billions, we sent over the expertise, the equipment. And it worked. We industrialized Europe and the Pacific rim and capitalism has defeated communism. So it worked. But in that 50-year period, we more or less unilaterally disarmed. I can remember back as a young Governor in 1960, I testified before the old international tariff commission, and Tom Dewey was the lawyer for the Japanese. He was chasing me around, and I was attesting to the fact that if this continued, with imports of textiles, 10 percent of the American consumption in textiles would be represented in imports. Over two-thirds of the clothing I am looking at now is imported, not 10 percent. Over 86 percent of the shoes are imported. And so it goes with automobiles and steel and hand tools and everything else. I have been watching Lou Dobbs. He has had a series on how the world is sending us their architects; then they are sending over medical personnel, and doctors in America are sending mammograms to be read in India. And then I find out that my utility in South Carolina--SCANA-- was administering my light bills in downtown Bangalore, India, and my Food Stamp Program at the State capital in my home State had moved to India. I said: Heavens above. The other night I turned on the series, and now we are moving our law work to lawyers abroad. Instead of hiring paralegals for $75,000 to $80,000 a year in New York to do the background work on a brief or an appeal--they are moving the work to lawyers overseas. They are going to move everything overseas except politicians. We are already too cheap, I can tell you that. They will be importing everything except us politicians. And we keep sitting around whining and beating the desks and showing charts how we are leveling the playing field. How do you think you level the playing field? You raise a barrier against a barrier and then remove them both. This proposition of the Golden Rule doesn't work in business, I can tell you that.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Show that to the viewing public, please. That is the theme here.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I surely am.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I tell you, it has been ship, ship, ship. And who is financing this extravagance we have going? Let me bring you up to date. In 2003, as of the end of November, the Chinese had borrowed, in the People's Republic $143.8 billion and at Hong Kong $55.5 billion. So they have financed your and my extravagance to the tune of $199.7 billion--they are financing our debt. Treasury Secretary John Snow goes to China and he says: How about floating your yen here so we can do away with that advantage you have? And the fellows in Beijing say: Bug off, boy. Go on back home. We might start selling your bonds rather than buying them, if you don't think that will wreck your economy and get the Democrats elected in November. That is what they told Snow. And Snow put his tail between his legs and came home. This is what controls the trade policy. We don't control it because we abdicate. Just like President Bush is AWOL in the trade war, we have been AWOL in the trade war--we have, this Congress. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution reads that the Congress of the United States shall regulate foreign commerce. What do we do? We bug out. We want the money from the big guys and the rich guys and the multinationals, so we bug out and say, oh, no, you take it, Mr. President, we will give you fast track so we cannot even amend trade agreements and you have the responsibility. With that responsibility, he goes AWOL. Here is the headline. And we are AWOL. You have the candidates running all over the land weeping and wailing about jobs. Let me tell you one thing, Mr. President. If you are going to try to rebuild an economy, you have to do one thing. I am going to give you our jobs omnibus bill and we will draw it up and I will get the distinguished Senator from Vermont to look at it and see what he thinks of it. No. 1, what we have to do is immediately quit financing the move of jobs overseas. I will never forget, I called Walter Allen Drissi. In Lexington, SC, I helped him with the water and sewer lines. He went out and got himself organized and started a high-tech company, Avenax. He got involved with Bill Gates and MCI. So 4 or 5 years ago, when his stock was up, I called Walter out in California and I said: Now, when you expand, I want a plant somewhere in South Carolina. We were good to you and you still have a home in Columbia. He said: I will keep my home. I love South Carolina, but I don't make anything in this country. He said: I got my research and sales out here. He said: I go right to China for my product. I get a year-to-year contract. I don't have to build a plant. They have the plant and the workforce. I got a quality man and I am sitting here with the Internet. I watch it every day. My good and trusted man watches the quality. I make two or three visits a year. At the end of the year, I have made a wonderful profit. If I haven't, I haven't lost anything really because I don't have to renew the contract. If I have done better than expected, I get another contract. It is a sweetheart deal. That is what is going on with American business. Do you know who the enemy within is? The enemy within is our best organizations--the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business. They are running all over the floor saying: free trade, free trade, free trade. Are you for free trade? And we jump like monkeys and say, yes, I am for free trade, but I want to level the playing field. This is nauseating. I have been watching this for years. Even the newspapers are against it. They make a majority of their profits on retail advertising, and the retailers buy all their products overseas. I used to sit right where the Senator is standing, talking about how retailers have 100,000 articles at Christmastime, and when they run out of supplies and need another 10,000 dozen quick they would get it from New Jersey. But now they make a way greater profit on the imported article than on the New Jersey production. So the retailers make all their profits on the imported articles, and they advertise and they call up and they give the already canned editorials to the newspapers, so all the newspapers are hollering free trade, free trade, saying it creates jobs. It loses jobs. I have lost 58,000 jobs since President Bush has taken office. Come on. My State is in trouble. That is why all the candidates were running around there making promises. They started a movement. But they have to understand that we have to change the culture. How do you change the culture? You change the culture by, No. 1, quit financing them, and letting them keep the profits they make overseas. They don't have to pay income tax. That has to stop. We have a bill in that takes those benefits from overseas production and gives it to the particular domestic manufacturer that continues to work his own people. No. 2, we have to start enforcing our laws. I have worked with the private community over the years in customs law and enforcement of trade laws, and it has been left to the manufacturer and the private entity to enforce it. I will never forget the final climax of this so-called enforcement in customs laws occurred back when President Reagan was President. If you had a problem, you had to go first before the International Trade Administration, prove a dumping violation, come before the International Trade Commission and prove an injury, and then go to the U.S. Supreme Court and prove the legality; and then you have one final step, where the President of the United States, on national security provisions, can vitiate the whole thing. In the Zenith case, they won it all. They won before the Trade Administration and the International Trade Commission. They won before the Supreme Court. Then the Cabinet was gathered around the table and they agreed unanimously to enforce the finding. In walked President Reagan and he said: I have talked to Prime Minister of Japan and we are going to have to reverse that. That was the end of it--three years, millions of dollars, all kinds of motions and pleadings and everything else, and it didn't get anywhere. So the real trial bar in trade cases has just about disappeared because it is not worth the billable hours to go through the exercise. We need an Assistant Attorney General on textile laws. We have an Assistant Attorney General on antitrust. We need an Assistant Attorney General on trade laws and on dumping. We ought to start enforcing our dumping or selling lost leaders below cost. That is against the law in the domestic economy and the capitalistic society that we have, to have lost leaders and sell below cost. That is exactly what they are doing. That Lexus that costs $32,000 in America sells for $42,000 in Tokyo on the main street there. They have been selling below cost here, financing with the banking system to get market share. They don't care about profits. Market share is the competition. They say it is not WTO compatible. Well, if it is not World Trade Organization compatible, we have to change that or get out of the World Trade Organization. After getting that, in addition to enforcing our laws, we have to make sure we have the customs agents. I got an office in the Customs house in Charleston, SC. I used to go to them on textiles and they said: Senator, wait a minute, we are shorthanded. Do you want me to enforce drugs or textiles? I said: No, no, let's be sure we get the drugs. Now I go to them and they say: Wait a minute. Do you want me to enforce homeland security, or drugs, or textiles? I say homeland security and drugs, forget about the textiles. The Treasury Department and Customs testified that they got 5 billion in transshipments--illegal transshipments of textiles into this country. We could save thousands of jobs if we could just get that law enforced. We need specifically to fully fund the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program. We need a list of the critical materials in the Defense Department that are necessary to our national security. We must make sure we aren't running a deficit in the balance of those critical materials. Do you know why we waited that long to go into Desert Storm? We couldn't get the flat panel displays for the lookdown, see-down, before we could go in and decimate Saddam. Now, for much of that defense materiel we have to depend on allies whom this administration has made generally unfriendly. Come on, in this terror war, might doesn't make right; right makes might in the war on terror. Don't worry about a big old defense budget. Get me a big old State Department budget. Let's start making friends. We can't do this by ourselves. We are whistling ``Dixie'' running around with an atom bomb and a bunch of GIs killing. The question is: Was it really worth the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam with 530-some American dead, over 3,000 injured, $160 billion in costs, and creating more terrorism rather than less terrorism? We actually, this minute, have more terrorism rather than less terrorism. We hope--and we want to support our effort in Iraq to bring it to as quick a conclusion as possible--we hope we have democracy, but right now, if you had to call the hand, it would be a loser because we were misled into this war. Saddam Hussein didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, but when the President--and I want to explain that vote--when the President on October 7, 2002, said there is clear evidence of peril--those are his words, ``clear evidence of peril''--we cannot wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Wait a minute. That was on October 7. On October 11, we voted. Once the Commander in Chief says there is clear evidence of peril, and 4 days later we have a vote, anybody reasonably sane and prudent would vote to support his Commander in Chief. We thought there was clear evidence of peril. There was not clear evidence of peril. I will be delighted to yield.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We ought to make my colleague, Senator Inhofe, the inspector rather than David Kay, who didn't find any of what the Senator was listing. In other words, I don't think there is any more argument. There might have been a little bit here, a little bit there, but there was no imminent threat. There was no clear evidence of peril. You can find stuff that could have killed anybody. We could all get the chicken flu, but we are not trying to eliminate the State of Delaware because they have a little chicken flu there. Come on.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Why didn't they use them? Excuse me, why didn't they use it? You found them, why didn't they use them? Why didn't you call Saddam and say use them?

Mr. HOLLINGS. What is the excuse? You should have called him, you found them, and Saddam didn't use them. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You are running around on the floor of the Senate finding all kinds of things, but we had inspectors upon inspectors, and they have pretty well proved there was no clear evidence of peril.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from Vermont has been overgenerous to me, but I think what we both agree we are at fault as much as the President in shipping jobs overseas. We are the ones under the Constitution, article I, section 8, the Congress, not the President, not the Supreme Court, the Congress shall regulate foreign commerce, but we have abdicated our responsibility, and we have gladly done so. Why? Because the Conference Board and the Business Roundtable and the United States Chamber of Commerce gives us money, and we need the money to run. So we take the money and run and avoid our responsibilities. We have to change the whole culture. We are into a dynamic trade war. We had a plus balance 10 years ago with Europe. We have a negative balance now. NAFTA hasn't worked. We had a $5 billion-plus balance before NAFTA. Now it is a negative $15 billion balance, and the average Mexican worker is not making less. What we really need is a Marshall Plan for our neighbor, the country of Mexico. That is what we ought to have rather than going back and forth. We had last year a $500 billion trade deficit, and about $500 billion in a budget deficit. So we have infused--infused--$1 trillion in the last year into the economy, and we created no jobs. That should worry everybody in the Congress. And what the President proposed for next year's budget is not a $521 billion deficit. Look on page 392, and you will find it's a $726 billion budget deficit that he proposes, and he doesn't include anything for Afghanistan and Iraq and the cost of the alternative minimum tax, which is another $200 billion. We are in real trouble. We have to sit down in a bipartisan way and quit running around with the signs saying the President is AWOL, because the Congress is AWOL. That is my beef. I fought these trade bills. I couldn't get anybody's attention, but now we have their attention. Baloney with that Business Roundtable, and profits, and downsizing and moving overseas. Let's make it profitable for manufacturers to do business in the United States. That is common sense. I say to the Senator from Vermont, doesn't he want to do that? I am sure he does. I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind attention. These are the most important issues we have ever had. There isn't any question about that. The January 27th New York Times reports that at a business meeting in Davos, Zhu Min, an economic adviser to the President of China, was met with silence when he asked Americans how their country planned to finance its economy with both blue collar manufacturing and white collar service jobs going elsewhere. The world has changed. Come on, wake up and start working out a good jobs policy in this Congress and quit blaming each other. There is plenty of blame to go around for all of us. But when it gets so bad that the economic adviser to the President of China, is asking how you pay your bill with all of these jobs going over here, and the economic adviser to the President of the United States says, ``Right on, we need more of them overseas, it is good for the country,'' we are in real trouble. I thank the distinguished Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. The full committee ranking member's understanding of the circumstances and provision is correct.

Mr. HOLLINGS. My response to my friend and the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee is I absolutely agree the Commerce Department does not have the authority to rescind funds from the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program. Mr. President, it is clear. The Commerce Department has no legal authority to rescind these funds and should keep its hands off of the money in the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement Act of the 21st Century, better known as ``ARRIVE-21.'' This legislation is of vital importance to rail transportation because it provides steady, dependable funding for our beleaguered national passenger rail system. It also provides funding for infrastructure investment in the railroad industry as a whole, including freight railroads. And it establishes a financing mechanism to ensure that our rail system benefits from a steady stream of funding, just like our airline industry, our transit systems, and our national highway system. For the past 30 years, Amtrak has provided us with a valuable public service, even though it was forced year after year to come beg for money from the Congress. And year after year, the Congress gave it just enough money to barely survive another 12 months. Sometimes Congress didn't appropriate even enough money to last 12 months, and Amtrak had to come back and beg for a supplemental appropriation just to remain in business until the end of the fiscal year. Never mind having enough money to grow the railroad; never mind having enough money to run a first-class passenger railroad. And never mind having enough money to keep the infrastructure in a state of good repair. All Amtrak has been able to do for 30 years is stay alive. It's time to give Amtrak the tools and funding it needs to do the job we keep asking it to do. Last year I introduced the National Defense Rail Act of 2002 which was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-3. We have shown that bipartisan support exists for authorizing a strong rail program, however the main obstacle we have faced has been securing funding to live up to the authorized amounts. This legislation attempts to address the lack of a guaranteed revenue stream for passenger rail programs and establishes a framework to address freight needs where there is a clear public benefit. It's a foregone conclusion that transportation development requires money. We somehow figured this out a long time ago with regard to every other mode of transportation. We federally funded the development of the interstate highway system; we subsidized airport construction; we dredged harbors and channels; and we built locks and dams. And the result of all that investment is that our citizens and our goods can move across the country, from big cities and from small towns, efficiently and relatively cheaply. We have today a national transportation system with many impressive components. You might even say we have been a little too successful with these modes of transportation because many of them are now strained to capacity in many areas of the country. This situation presents not only an economic dilemma, but also a genuine security risk. The atrocious events of September 11th, and the aftermath that followed, exposed the vulnerability of our society and our economy when transportation choices become limited and our mobility is diminished. Effective transportation security means that, as a Nation, we nurture all transportation options and we do not allow ourselves to be overly dependent on only one or two particular modes. In effect, that's what we have done by favoring highways and aviation, where we have directed the flow of billions of dollars. Ironically, rail passenger service is more environmentally-friendly, more fuel-efficient, and more capable of mitigating the impacts of population congestion to help foster regional economic growth than any of the other modes. But in the process of shoring up those other transportation modes for all those years, we lost our focus on passenger rail and we sadly neglected investing in its development. For passenger rail to be successful, its infrastructure must be developed through the kind of bold Federal leadership we exercised for our other modes of transportation. That's why my colleagues and I are pleased to introduce this landmark piece of legislation designed to change the way we think about financing passenger rail service and designed to grow our passenger rail system into the world-class system it should be. The bill creates Federal/State and public/private partnerships to promote infrastructure development for both freight and passenger rail. It provides $20-$25 billion in grants over six years to States and State compacts for rail capital projects to provide for a safe, secure, and efficient rail transportation system. It enhances Federal and State rail transportation policy, and it promotes intermodal transportation investment. ARRIVE-21 creates a non-profit Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation (RIFCO) to issue $30 billion in tax-credit bonds over six years for the purpose of providing grants to States for capital investment in freight and passenger rail infrastructure and facilities. RIFCO will establish a trust account made up of bond proceeds and contributions from States that receive RIFCO grants. Bond proceeds and State contributions in excess of the amount required to maintain the trust account will then be available for grants to the States through a competitive process. Although my first choice would be to fully fund the needs authorized in this legislation by straight federal spending, it has become clear that over the last thirty years that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow when it comes to Amtrak. There is not enough money in the scant pot available for discretionary spending on transportation programs. We have established dedicated trust funds for the airlines with their ticket taxes, and we have the trust fund for the highways and transit programs which are funded through the gas tax, but when it comes to passenger railroads, there is no such revenue stream. The establishment of RIFCO was not my first choice to finance the publicly needed improvements of the railroad system, but it is an option for the Congress to debate and consider as we attempt to address what we need the rail system to do for this country. RIFCO is set up to assist the States fund both passenger and freight projects that benefit the public on a State, regional or national basis. State or State compacts may apply for RIFCO funds for discretionary and formula funds for capital projects in four categories: State Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Development, including equipment, stations, and facilities. State Freight Rail Infrastructure Development Projects, including capital projects that primarily benefit freight rail transportation. States may use a percentage of these formula funds to manage State rail programs. National System Improvement Projects, including projects that significantly benefit the national passenger rail system, Amtrak- sponsored projects and Northeast Corridor projects. High Priority Projects, including projects with major public policy benefits to the national rail system or significantly expand rail intermodal capacity in connection with maritime, aviation, and highway facilities. Eligible capital projects would include new rail line development, planning and environmental reviews, track upgrades and restoration, highway-rail grade crossing improvements and eliminations, relocation of track, infrastructure and facilities, construction of intermodal facilities and passenger rail stations, tunnel and bridge repairs, communication and signaling improvements, environmental impact mitigation, acquisition of passenger rail equipment, and security improvements. Projects to receive discretionary funding would be selected by RIFCO according to selection criteria contained in the bill. The projects would require a 20 percent non-Federal contribution paid to RIFCO for bond repayment. ARRIVE-21 also directs the Federal Railroad Administration to develop a National Rail Plan and to work with States in developing State rail plans, so that we have a comprehensive and coordinated long-range plan for rail development for the whole country. The bill also directs the Office of Intermodalism in the Department of Transportation to create a ``50-Year Blueprint'' for the development of a national intermodal transportation system and provide a vision of emerging trends and opportunities for the future of passenger and freight rail transportation. Before I close, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the work of Nancy Lummens Lewis, a detailee from the Federal Railroad Administration, who has worked on the Commerce Committee since January. We have appreciated her professionalism, competency, and her willingness to work and share her time with us. I thank Nancy for her time spent on this bill, as well as her efforts on the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act, and The Surface Transportation Board Act of 2003. We wish her well in her future endeavors. ARRIVE-21 presents a smart and efficient solution to a very important transportation dilemma. I am joined by several of my colleagues, including Senators Collins, Specter, Carper and Jeffords, in introducing this bipartisan legislation. As we have passed legislation this week providing approximately $15 billion annually for aviation for the next 4 years, and plan to take up a highway bill next year which will spend $40 to $60 billion annually on highways and transit over six years, we must not leave rail out. It is critical that the Senate take this bill up, and pass it, to ensure that our railroad transportation system, especially our passenger rail system, can grow and develop to meet our current and future transportation needs. Attached is an amendment that the sponsors of ARRIVE-21 intend to offer during floor consideration of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I oppose the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act. I remind my colleagues that we have a national debt that exceeds $6.9 trillion. The legislation currently before us is part of a budget resolution and economic plan that will cause our debt to double over the next 10 years. Make no mistake about it, we will borrow every penny to pay this $394.3 billion bill. How ironic--we are going to borrow money from Social Security to pay for seniors health care. And what do we get in return? Spotty drug coverage for senior citizens, millions of Americans who will lose their existing coverage, massive subsidies for HMOs, the first step toward the destruction of Medicare as we know it, and a larger fiscal noose around the neck of future generations. We can do much better and should go back to the drawing board. Instead of providing seniors with the stable and affordable benefit they deserve, this bill forces seniors to maneuver a complex maze of premiums, deductibles and copayments for benefits that contain huge gaps in coverage. On top of their premiums, which will vary from region to region and plan to plan, seniors will get no help for the first $250 of their drug costs, pay 25 percent of costs from $251 to $2,250, pay all the costs from $2,251 to at least $5,100, and then pay a fifth of costs above $5,100. With a breakeven point of $810, many healthier Medicare beneficiaries will opt not to participate. Because of the $2,850 coverage gap, many of the sickest patients will have to ration care for months because even though they continue to pay premiums, they receive no government assistance. Furthermore, seniors better not get too comfortable with their prescription drug coverage. Nearly 3 million of them with retiree coverage, including 39,000 residents of South Carolina will lose their coverage. This bill could force those who participate in the new Medicare drug benefit to move in between three separate plans, with three separate formularies, in 3 years. It should come as no surprise that the authors of this convoluted mess and Karl Rove have decided to wait until after the 2004 election before this new benefit starts up and Medicare beneficiaries see what they are in for. Conferees could have taken a number of steps to address these deficiencies. Instead, they denied the government the ability to negotiate lower drug prices on behalf of all Medicare beneficiaries. This will impose a higher cost on both the taxpayers who foot this bill and the Medicare beneficiaries who will have to make higher copayments. They also created a $12 billion slush fund the government can use to entice private plans to participate against traditional Medicare and diverted $6.7 billion from the amounts saved by companies that will drop retiree coverage to create tax shelters for wealthy individuals. These funds could have been more appropriately spent providing incentives for companies to continue retiree coverage or reducing the size of the ``doughnut.'' I also believe this bill is the first step toward the dismantling of Medicare. The ``premiums support'' demonstration contained in this legislation opens the door to the privatization of Medicare. Seniors in at least six parts of the country will be forced to either pay higher premium to remain in the traditional Medicare system or move into an HMO. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, this legislation provides an uneven playing field between traditional Medicare and private plans. I have always felt that if a private plan can offer a better benefit package to a beneficiary at an equal or lower cost, then beneficiaries should have the choice of which plan they want to participate in. This bill dramatically slants the playing field in favor of private plans. In addition to a 9 percent higher payment, private plans will have access to a $12 billion fund to further underwrite their costs. These actions undermine the traditional Medicare system generations of our seniors have come to depend on. The flimsy prescription drug benefit and long-term damage done to Medicare contained in this legislation does not warrant its high price tag. I encourage my colleagues to defeat this bill, take up and pass S. 1926 to improve reimbursement for doctors, hospitals and rural providers, and continue to work toward a meaningful drug benefit.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement Act of the 21st Century, better known as ``ARRIVE-21.'' This legislation is of vital importance to rail transportation because it provides steady, dependable funding for our beleaguered national passenger rail system. It also provides funding for infrastructure investment in the railroad industry as a whole, including freight railroads. And it establishes a financing mechanism to ensure that our rail system benefits from a steady stream of funding, just like our airline industry, our transit systems, and our national highway system. For the past 30 years, Amtrak has provided us with a valuable public service, even though it was forced year after year to come beg for money from the Congress. And year after year, the Congress gave it just enough money to barely survive another 12 months. Sometimes Congress didn't appropriate even enough money to last 12 months, and Amtrak had to come back and beg for a supplemental appropriation just to remain in business until the end of the fiscal year. Never mind having enough money to grow the railroad; never mind having enough money to run a first-class passenger railroad. And never mind having enough money to keep the infrastructure in a state of good repair. All Amtrak has been able to do for 30 years is stay alive. It's time to give Amtrak the tools and funding it needs to do the job we keep asking it to do. Last year I introduced the National Defense Rail Act of 2002 which was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee by a vote of 20-3. We have shown that bipartisan support exists for authorizing a strong rail program, however the main obstacle we have faced has been securing funding to live up to the authorized amounts. This legislation attempts to address the lack of a guaranteed revenue stream for passenger rail programs and establishes a framework to address freight needs where there is a clear public benefit. It's a foregone conclusion that transportation development requires money. We somehow figured this out a long time ago with regard to every other mode of transportation. We federally funded the development of the interstate highway system; we subsidized airport construction; we dredged harbors and channels; and we built locks and dams. And the result of all that investment is that our citizens and our goods can move across the country, from big cities and from small towns, efficiently and relatively cheaply. We have today a national transportation system with many impressive components. You might even say we have been a little too successful with these modes of transportation because many of them are now strained to capacity in many areas of the country. This situation presents not only an economic dilemma, but also a genuine security risk. The atrocious events of September 11th, and the aftermath that followed, exposed the vulnerability of our society and our economy when transportation choices become limited and our mobility is diminished. Effective transportation security means that, as a Nation, we nurture all transportation options and we do not allow ourselves to be overly dependent on only one or two particular modes. In effect, that's what we have done by favoring highways and aviation, where we have directed the flow of billions of dollars. Ironically, rail passenger service is more environmentally-friendly, more fuel-efficient, and more capable of mitigating the impacts of population congestion to help foster regional economic growth than any of the other modes. But in the process of shoring up those other transportation modes for all those years, we lost our focus on passenger rail and we sadly neglected investing in its development. For passenger rail to be successful, its infrastructure must be developed through the kind of bold Federal leadership we exercised for our other modes of transportation. That's why my colleagues and I are pleased to introduce this landmark piece of legislation designed to change the way we think about financing passenger rail service and designed to grow our passenger rail system into the world-class system it should be. The bill creates Federal/State and public/private partnerships to promote infrastructure development for both freight and passenger rail. It provides $20-$25 billion in grants over six years to States and State compacts for rail capital projects to provide for a safe, secure, and efficient rail transportation system. It enhances Federal and State rail transportation policy, and it promotes intermodal transportation investment. ARRIVE-21 creates a non-profit Rail Infrastructure Finance Corporation (RIFCO) to issue $30 billion in tax-credit bonds over six years for the purpose of providing grants to States for capital investment in freight and passenger rail infrastructure and facilities. RIFCO will establish a trust account made up of bond proceeds and contributions from States that receive RIFCO grants. Bond proceeds and State contributions in excess of the amount required to maintain the trust account will then be available for grants to the States through a competitive process. Although my first choice would be to fully fund the needs authorized in this legislation by straight federal spending, it has become clear that over the last thirty years that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow when it comes to Amtrak. There is not enough money in the scant pot available for discretionary spending on transportation programs. We have established dedicated trust funds for the airlines with their ticket taxes, and we have the trust fund for the highways and transit programs which are funded through the gas tax, but when it comes to passenger railroads, there is no such revenue stream. The establishment of RIFCO was not my first choice to finance the publicly needed improvements of the railroad system, but it is an option for the Congress to debate and consider as we attempt to address what we need the rail system to do for this country. RIFCO is set up to assist the States fund both passenger and freight projects that benefit the public on a State, regional or national basis. State or State compacts may apply for RIFCO funds for discretionary and formula funds for capital projects in four categories: State Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Development, including equipment, stations, and facilities. State Freight Rail Infrastructure Development Projects, including capital projects that primarily benefit freight rail transportation. States may use a percentage of these formula funds to manage State rail programs. National System Improvement Projects, including projects that significantly benefit the national passenger rail system, Amtrak- sponsored projects and Northeast Corridor projects. High Priority Projects, including projects with major public policy benefits to the national rail system or significantly expand rail intermodal capacity in connection with maritime, aviation, and highway facilities. Eligible capital projects would include new rail line development, planning and environmental reviews, track upgrades and restoration, highway-rail grade crossing improvements and eliminations, relocation of track, infrastructure and facilities, construction of intermodal facilities and passenger rail stations, tunnel and bridge repairs, communication and signaling improvements, environmental impact mitigation, acquisition of passenger rail equipment, and security improvements. Projects to receive discretionary funding would be selected by RIFCO according to selection criteria contained in the bill. The projects would require a 20 percent non-Federal contribution paid to RIFCO for bond repayment. ARRIVE-21 also directs the Federal Railroad Administration to develop a National Rail Plan and to work with States in developing State rail plans, so that we have a comprehensive and coordinated long-range plan for rail development for the whole country. The bill also directs the Office of Intermodalism in the Department of Transportation to create a ``50-Year Blueprint'' for the development of a national intermodal transportation system and provide a vision of emerging trends and opportunities for the future of passenger and freight rail transportation. Before I close, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the work of Nancy Lummens Lewis, a detailee from the Federal Railroad Administration, who has worked on the Commerce Committee since January. We have appreciated her professionalism, competency, and her willingness to work and share her time with us. I thank Nancy for her time spent on this bill, as well as her efforts on the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, The Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act, and The Surface Transportation Board Act of 2003. We wish her well in her future endeavors. ARRIVE-21 presents a smart and efficient solution to a very important transportation dilemma. I am joined by several of my colleagues, including Senators Collins, Specter, Carper and Jeffords, in introducing this bipartisan legislation. As we have passed legislation this week providing approximately $15 billion annually for aviation for the next 4 years, and plan to take up a highway bill next year which will spend $40 to $60 billion annually on highways and transit over six years, we must not leave rail out. It is critical that the Senate take this bill up, and pass it, to ensure that our railroad transportation system, especially our passenger rail system, can grow and develop to meet our current and future transportation needs. Attached is an amendment that the sponsors of ARRIVE-21 intend to offer during floor consideration of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I also thank the chairman and the Senator from New Jersey for their work on this important issue. Reauthorization of Federal railroad safety programs is needed, and the chairman has acted with great diligence in advancing this legislation. The issue the Senator from New Jersey has raised concerning railroad police officers is one that requires a closer examination, and I believe the Inspector General can provide valuable input. I look forward to working with both of them on this issue. definition of negotiated price