Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in South Carolina, Senator Thurmond and I have a long tradition of working cooperatively to nominate judges. Senator Thurmond has made good choices in the past, and he has done so again, with Judge Dennis Shedd, for elevation to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Shedd is familiar to many Members, having staffed the Judiciary Committee for several years, and of course serving as chief counsel and administrative assistant to Senator Thurmond himself. He is a very smart and capable man. For more than a decade, he has been a judge on the United States District Court for South Carolina, based in Columbia. He has a reputation as a hard worker on the bench, as a straight-shooter, and one who is up-to-date on the laws. By special designation, he has sat on the Fourth Court on several occasions. No judge now sitting on the Fourth Circuit has as much Federal trial experience. On the bench, he has handled 5,000 cases, and he has been reversed less than one percent in that entire time, an outstanding record of sound judgment. I can say he has the support of a wide array of lawyers in South Carolina, and has received a well qualified rating by the American Bar Association. I have a letter from Joseph Anderson, chief United States District Judge, who writes: ``I can say without hesitation that Judge Shedd has a reputation for fairness, both in his community and on our court. As Chief Judge, I have received no complaints about his courtroom demeanor, his decisions, or his procedures. It is my considered opinion that all people who appear in his court receive a fair hearing, regardless of the type of cases involved, or the status of the parties in the case. And here is a letter from nine faculty members of the University of South Carolina School of Law, from which Judge Shedd graduated. After analyzing several of his cases they conclude: ``Judge Shedd's record on the Federal bench demonstrates that he is fair and impartial in all matters that come before him, including to plaintiffs in employment discrimination and civil rights cases. . . . In our view he will make an excellent addition to the Fourth Circuit.'' Let me acknowledge that the NAACP, and some others, have concerns with him. But I have looked into those situations, and I find them wanting with respect to specific inappropriate actions by Judge Shedd. We in the law know that you never have a character witness come up and tell what he knows of his own association, but rather you bring witnesses who give testimony to his reputation in the particular community. In that regard, having checked it out, Judge Shedd is my kind of judge. He is hard, he is tough, but he is hard and he is tough on both sides. We who have practiced law before the courts, and know the score, and don't play games appreciate a judge who is not going to allow any games to be played on you. I have said often that as much as we need a balanced budget, we need some balanced Senators, and some balanced judges. I hope we can garner bipartisan support, and to see that this Judge is confirmed. I ask unanimous consent to print the letters in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We scheduled the vote for 11 a.m.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I was asked at a news conference yesterday, did we capitulate on account of the elections? I said no. Under Senator Lott's leadership, we capitulated before the election. You got us together, and I really thank the Senator on behalf of all of us.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate it. Let me thank the distinguished Senator from New York. He is right as rain. We did not get adequate funds. That was a struggle over on the House side. That was the Gordian knot broken by our distinguished minority leader, Senator Trent Lott. But we are going to have to find not only the money for the research, we will have to find about $4 billion at least to implement this measure. I thank the Senator from New York. I particularly thank the Senator and chairman of our subcommittee, Senator Breaux. We had those six field hearings. We had the Director of Customs there. We had the Commandant of the Coast Guard. They were very comprehensive hearings with limited time. I can tell you now, we saw at one particular port a Ford pickup truck back out of that container, and another container that we happened upon had a bunch of mahogany desks from Mexico that we didn't see at the particular time. But later on up in Delaware, the Philadelphia area, it was opened up. It was all full of cocaine. So we made a good raid at one of those hearings. Otherwise, the chairman on the House side, Mr. Don Young, and his ranking member, Jim Oberstar, worked around the clock. They had to feel like we had over on the Senate side to take care of this with the user fee. But we just couldn't get the support on the House side. We are only here on account of the leadership of Chairman Young and Congressman Oberstar. We had Senator Ted Stevens reconciling a good bit of the differences from time to time. And in the financial area, we had Senator Bob Graham and Chairman Chuck Grassley of the Finance Committee who worked with us. I think we ought to understand that this, for the first time, requires a national maritime security plan. As part of the plan, each regional area would be required to have a security plan. It requires for the first time ever that all waterfront facilities and vessels have a security plan that would have to be reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard. It requires for the first time ever that the Government will do assessments of security at our ports, and these reports would be the basis for port security planners. The security requirements will be implemented instantly after review by the Coast Guard, and the act would be fully implemented within 1 year. We have background checks on all of the employees. We have the development of technology for seaport security, the maritime intelligence system; that requires tracking of vessels through satellite legal authority over territorial waters, advanced reporting requirements for vessels and cargo. And one final word: We did work with the unions in this particular measure. The White House, the unions, the Republicans, the Democrats, the House, the Senate worked out those background checks on union employees. So when we got together and much has been said that on the homeland security bill that was the holdup--we worked out a very comprehensive system that was approved by all and will give security to our port facilities. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his courtesy in yielding and his leadership on this particular measure.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Momentarily our distinguished colleague from Florida will speak. It was Senator Graham of Florida who persuaded President Clinton to appoint the investigating commission with respect to seaport security. I wish to add a couple comments with respect to the Coast Guard authorization. As I have stated, it is the first authorization since 1998, and it increases the Coast Guard budget $1 billion, with 10,000 additional active duty military personnel. They have been understaffed. I know of a tragic situation of search and rescue that did not work in Charleston, SC, my backyard. There are provisions in this legislation so we have adequate personnel manpower there. The Coast Guard is to examine and report to Congress its expenditures and missions by September of next year. We want to get in lockstep as they increase their effort from 2 percent of the budget to some 22 percent of the budget with respect to seaport security. I can point out many other provisions, but I will yield such time as is necessary to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I am glad to hear him say we are going to work together on port security and the reauthorization of Amtrak because that is vital. I think if the leader here, the Senator from Nevada, and the other side are ready, we can yield back time and proceed to the vote. I yield back any time I may have. I thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, first, I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield such time as is necessary to the Senator from New York.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the American public is most familiar with airline, highway and rail transportation. But perhaps the most vulnerable link in our transportation system is the component that few Americans ever see: our major seaports. Our 361 sea and river ports handle 95 percent of U.S. international trade. These ports annually transfer more than 2 billion tons of freight--often in huge containers from ships that discharge directly onto trucks and railcars that immediately head onto our highways and rail systems. But less than 2 percent of those 5 million containers are ever checked by customs or law enforcement officials. That is a gaping hole in our national security that must be fixed. That is why the Senate passed The Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001 in December of 2001 and the House and Senate have filed the conference report on the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. Before discussing the specifics of this conference report, I want to discuss the vulnerabilities at America's seaports: Lloyd's List International reported that a NATO country's intelligence service has identified 20 merchant vessels believed to be linked to Osama bin Laden. Those vessels are now subject to seizure in ports all over the world. Some of the vessels are thought to be owned outright by bin Laden's business interests, while others are on long- term charter. The Times of London reported that bin Laden used his ships to import into Kenya the explosives used to destroy the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. A suspected member of the al-Quida terrorist network was arrested in Italy after he tried to stow-away in a shipping container heading to Toronto. The container was furnished with a bed, a toilet, and its own power source to operate the heater and recharge batteries. According to the Toronto Sun, the man also had a global satellite telephone, a laptop computer, an airline mechanics certificate, and security passes for airports in Canada, Thailand and Egypt. In October, a French-flagged tanker was attacked by terrorists in a manner very similar to the speed boat attack on the USS Cole in 2000. The attack caused 60,000 tons of oil to be released into the waters off Yemen and killed one crew member. These stories really bring home this issue of seaport security. Except for those of us who live in port cities like Charleston, people often do not think about their ports--the ports that load industrial and consumer goods onto trucks and railroad cars heading directly to their hometowns. But making these ports more secure is vital to protecting our national security. The destruction that can be accomplished through security holes at our seaports potentially exceed any other mode of transportation. And yet we have failed to make seaport security a priority. Most Americans would be surprised to discover that until the provisions in this bill there has been no unified federal plan for overseeing the security of the international borders at our seaports. And that's what seaports are: international borders that must be protected as well as our land borders with Canada and Mexico. The U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs Service are doing an outstanding job, but they are outgunned. In the year 2000, we imported 5.5 million trailer truckloads of cargo. Due to that volume, the U.S. Customs Service is only able to inspect between 1 to 2 percent of containers. In other words, potential terrorists and drug smugglers have a 98 percent chance of randomly importing illegal and dangerous materials. Senator Bob Graham a few years ago convinced President Clinton to appoint a commission to look at seaport security. At the time, the main focus of port security was stopping illegal drugs, the smuggling of people, and cargo theft. While those problems still exist, the new--and very real--threat of terrorism strikes right at the heart of our national defense. The Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports issued a report a year ago that said security at U.S. seaports ``ranges from poor to fair.'' Let me repeat that: 17 federal agencies reviewed our port security system and found it in poor shape. According to the Commission: Control of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the seaports is often lacking. Practices to restrict or control the access of vehicles to vessels, cargo receipt and delivery operations, and passenger processing operations at seaports are either not present or not consistently enforced, increasing the risk that violators could quickly remove cargo or contraband. Many ports do not have identification cards issued to personnel to restrict access to vehicles, cargo receipt and delivery operations, and passenger processing operations. The report said: At many seaports, the carrying of firearms is to restricted, and thus internal conspirators and other criminals are allowed armed access to cargo vessels and cruise line terminals. In addition, many seaports rely on private security personnel who lack the crime prevention and law enforcement training and capability of regular police officers. The report also found that port-related businesses did not know where to report cargo theft and other crimes, and that federal, state and local law enforcement agencies responsible for a port's security rarely meet to coordinate their work. That is what our legislation does--it creates mechanisms to integrate all these different security agencies and their efforts to improve the security of our seaports, and the railways and highways that converge at our seaports. Our seaport security bill also directly funds more security officers, more screening equipment, and the building of important security infrastructure. Each agency is good at what they do individually. But they will be even stronger working together, sharing information and tactics, and coordinating security coverage at our seaports. More teamwork between these federal, state and local agencies--along with our security partners in the private sector--will produce a more secure seaport environment that is stronger than the sum of each agency's individual efforts. To foster that teamwork, our bill sets up a National Maritime Security Advisory Committee responsible for coordinating programs to enhance the security and safety of U.S. seaports. Most important in the bill are the requirements to implement security plans that will provide for efficient, coordinated and effective action to deter and minimize damage from a transportation security incident. The plans will be developed as a national plan, a regional area plan, and facility and vessel plans. The National and Area Security Plans will be developed by the Coast Guard and will be adequate to deter a transportation security incident to the maximum extent possible. The facility and vessel plans are for the individual waterfront facilities and vessels and must be consistent with the federal and area plans. The Secretary of Transportation will conduct an initial assessment of vessels and facilities on and near the water. The assessment will identify those facilities and vessel types that pose a high risk of being involved in a transportation security incident. These assessments will identify the vulnerable assets and infrastructure as well as the threats to those assets and infrastructure. Within a year the initial assessments will be made, interim security measures will be implemented, and more detailed assessments will be conducted, from which vessel and facility security plans will be devised. These plans will be based on the Coast Guard vulnerability assessments and security recommendations. The plans will be submitted to the Coast Guard by port authorities, waterfront facilities, and vessel operators. All ports, waterfront facilities and vessels are required to operate under approved security plans that are consistent with the Federal and Area Security Plans. To further enhance law enforcement cooperation, we will require the establishment of Area Security Advisory Committees at each port to coordinate security plans among all the involved agencies: law enforcement, intelligence agencies, Customs, Coast Guard, Immigration, port authorities, shipping companies, and port workers. The bill also creates new programs to professionally train port security personnel. Certification and training of maritime security personnel will be crucial in increasing the professionalism of our federal, state, local, and private sector security personnel. To address the immediate risk of terrorist activities at or through our seaports, the bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to immediately establish domestic maritime safety and security teams to respond to terrorist activity, criminal activity, or other threats. The units will be composed of officers trained in anti-terrorism, drug interdiction, navigation assistance, and facilitating response to security threats. I would like to thank Senator Edwards for his work on this provision. The bill also creates a Sea Marshal program to more specifically authorize the Coast Guard to board vessels in order to deter, prevent, or respond to acts of terrorism. These Sea Marshals will ride along aboard some vessels entering U.S. ports as a deterrent against hijacking or other criminal activity. I would like to thank Senator John Kerry and Senator John Breaux for working on the Sea Marshal initiative. I also commend Senator Breaux for all his work on seaport security. He is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine, he has toured throughout the nation reviewing security at our seaports and has done a yeoman's job helping to pass this bill. The bill will require ports to limit access to security-sensitive areas. Ports also will be required to limit cars and trucks, coordinate with local and private law enforcement, and develop an evacuation plan. Port areas will have increased security with specific area within the port being designated as controlled access where only those with the appropriate credentials will be allowed. The bill also will require criminal background checks of employees with access to ocean manifests or access-controlled areas of a port or terminal. These background checks are designed to ensure that individuals with access to our terminals and cargo facilities are not a terrorism security threat. A system of appeals and waivers will be provided to ensure that port workers are given full and adequate opportunity to explain mitigating factors justifying any waiver requests. This bill will require for the first time that we know more in advance about the cargo and crew members coming into the United States. The more we know about a ship's cargo--and where it originated--the better our Customs agents and other law enforcement officers can target the most suspicious containers and passengers. I am also pleased that we established performance standards for the locking and sealing of containers. It is vitally important that we ensure that shipping containers are adequately designed and constructed and that we check that they are securely locked for shipment. The bill modifies a rulemaking requirement for advanced cargo information. The original requirement was included in the Senate passed version of the bill. The rulemaking was then included in the Trade Act, and S. 1214 makes modifications to the Trade Act to incorporate additional changes. I would like to thank the Finance Committee for their cooperative spirit in our effort to enhance cargo security. Perhaps most importantly, we will give port authorities and local entities support in implementing and paying the costs of addressing Coast Guard identified vulnerabilities. We are dealing with an issue of national security--and we will treat it as such. It would be great if we could simply declare our ports to be more secure. But it takes money to make sure these international borders at our seaports are fully staffed with customs, law enforcement, and immigration personnel. It takes money to make sure they have modern security equipment, including the newest scanners to check cargo for the most dangerous materials. And it takes money to build the physical infrastructure of a secure port. For seaport security infrastructure, the bill directly authorizes amounts sufficient to upgrade security infrastructure such as gates and fencing, security-related lighting systems, and remote surveillance systems, equipment such as security vessels and screening equipment. I had hoped that we would have an agreement on a dedicated funding mechanism to ensure that state, local and private sector entities that are required to comply with federal security mandates would have the necessary funds to aggressively pursue compliance with security requirements. Unfortunately, I was not able to convince all of the conferees that this was the proper course of action. I was happy that we did reach an agreement to have the Administration report on how to pay for the federal portion of the seaport security responsibility. I will be following this very closely to ensure that we have some sort of agreement to allow for the aggressive pursuit of a new system of seaport security. U.S. Customs officers must be able to screen more than just 2 percent of the cargo coming into our seaports. We cannot expect to screen every marine container entering the United States, but there must be some expectation of inspection to deter cargo smugglers. While we spend billions of dollars on an anti-ballistic missile defense system, we fail to see perhaps even a greater threat to our national security coming through our ports. A cargo container can be delivered to anywhere in the United States for less than $5,000. The enemies of America can afford $5,000 to import a container of explosive or hazardous materials much more easily than millions of dollars to launch a rocket. Investing in new screening technologies will help human screeners inspect more cargo, and detect the most dangerous shipments. To increase the amount of cargo screened, the bill directly grants and authorizes $90 million in research and development grants to be awarded to develop methods to increase the ability of the U.S. Customs Service to inspect merchandise carried on any vessel that will arrive in the United States; develop equipment to detect nuclear materials; improving the tags and seals used on shipping containers, including smart sensors for tracking shipments; and tools to mitigate the consequences of terrorist attack. The research and development funds are intended to fund any enhancements that are necessary to enhance technology at U.S. Seaports. The destruction that can be accomplished through security holes at our seaports potentially exceeds any other mode of transportation. We all know the damage that can be caused by one truck bomb. But one ship can carry thousands of truck-sized containers filled with hazardous materials. A hijacked tanker holding 32 million gallons of oil or other explosive material that is rammed into a port city like Boston, New York, Miami, Los Angeles or Seattle could potentially kill thousands of people and destroy many city blocks. That vulnerability is magnified by the type of facilities along our coasts and rivers. There are 68 nuclear power plants located along U.S. waterways. Along the 52-mile Houston Ship Channel, there are 150 chemical plants, storage facilities and oil refineries. The Baltimore Sun reported that ``within a mile of the Inner Harbor of Baltimore is a major East Coast import and export hub for a broad range of dry and liquid chemicals. If ignited, many are capable of producing ferocious fires, explosions and clouds of noxious fumes--immediately adjacent to such densely populated row house neighborhoods as Locust Point, Highlandtown, and Canton.'' Most of the security procedures and infrastructure improvements contained in our bill have long been practiced at our airports and land border crossings. But, for some unfathomable reason, we don't take these preventive steps at our seaports--where most of our cargo arrives, and where we are most vulnerable. Our agents at the Mexican border near Tijuana will tear the seats out of a car to search for drugs--while a crane just up the coast in Los Angeles lifts thousands of truck-sized cargo containers onto the dock with no inspection at all. For the first time we will require federal approval of seaport security plans, better coordination and training of law enforcement, more information about cargo, and directly fund more Coast Guard personnel, U.S. Customs agents and security screening equipment to protect against crime and terrorism threats. Prior to September 11, 2001 we already faced security problems at our seaports related to smuggling, drugs, and cargo theft. But now we face the even greater threat of terrorism--a threat that requires us to immediately tighten security at our seaports, the most vulnerable part of our international border, in the defense of our nation. This landmark bill also incorporates a Coast Guard authorization bill--the first Coast Guard authorization bill that has passed Congress since 1998. The Coast Guard provisions in the bill reflect the provisions of S. 951, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001, which was reported out of the Commerce Committee last year. The bill provides increased authorization levels for appropriations in fiscal year 2003, as well as increased personnel. The bill authorizes approximately $6 billion for the Coast Guard's total budget for fiscal year 2003. This is approximately $1 billion higher than the amount appropriated in the FY 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill, and is approximately $200 million higher than the $5.8 billion of total enacted amounts in FY 2002, which includes two supplemental appropriations. The bill also increases the maximum end-of-year strength to 45,500 active duty military personnel, up from about 35,500, and includes personnel incentives. The authorizations of appropriations in this bill include $725,000,000 for capital investments, to ensure that the multi-year Deepwater program and the overhaul of the National Distress and Response System (NDS), or ``Maritime 911,'' are adequately funded in 2003. Ensuring that the Coast Guard has sufficient personnel and capital resources could not come at a more important time. Since the tragic events of September 11, far greater demands have been placed on the Coast Guard in the area of homeland security. Traditionally, the Coast Guard invested only 2 percent of its operating budget into seaport security; this climbed to over 50 percent of its total operating budget after September 11. Now, approximately 22 percent of the budget is envisioned for seaport security. The Coast Guard has unique missions not covered by any other federal agency. It has the primary responsibility of enforcing U.S. fisheries laws, carrying out drug interdiction at sea, search and rescue operations, and protecting the marine environment against pollution. With the new responsibilities for port security, combined with the traditional role the Coast Guard plays in other mission areas, it is critically important that the Coast Guard has a vision for how to achieve the ``new normalcy,'' wherein it carries out all of its traditional and new missions, as well as the means to ensure its ability to carry out such functions. This bill requires the Coast Guard to examine and report to Congress its expenditures by mission area before and after September 11, and the level of funding need to fulfill the Coast Guard's additional responsibilities. The bill also requires the Coast Guard to provide a strategic plan to Congress identifying mission targets for 2003, 2004 and 2005 and the specific steps necessary to achieve those targets. Even prior to 9/11, there were serious concerns about the Coast Guard's ability to carry out its core missions. For example, the Coast Guard's 30-year-old National Distress and Response System (NDS), also known as ``Maritime 911,'' is breaking down, and has 88 gaps in its geographical area of coverage. Failure to retain experienced crew has plagued the Coast Guard for years. The lack of experienced personnel has resulted in tragedy, with unanswered calls for help leading to the loss of lives at sea. In 1997, all four passengers of the sailboat Morning Dew, three of them children, drowned outside of Charleston Harbor as a result of a failed search and rescue system. The bill requires the Coast Guard to establish and implement standards for the safe operation of all search and rescue facilities. These include standards for the length of time an individual may serve on watch, and acquisition of equipment to achieve safety in the interim, as the entire system is upgraded. Since the events of September 11, our demands on the Coast Guard have risen dramatically. We must ensure that the Coast Guard is equipped with all of the tools and resources that it needs to protect our seaports, and to carry out all of its traditional missions. I am pleased that we have reached a successful result in the Conference with the House, and that by enacting a Port Security bill, we will at the same time be passing a Coast Guard authorization bill this year. Mr. President, the morning news reports that Osama bin Laden is alive and well and al-Qaida operates. Four years ago, we started working on this measure, because it was just prior to that time that one of al- Qaida's tankers pulled into Mombassa, the port at Kenya, and the terrorist crew jumped off and blew up the embassy at Nairobi and then Dar Es Salaam's embassy in Tanzania. Lloyds of London reports Osama bin Laden has actual ownership of some 10 oil tankers, and he has control of some other 10 cargo tankers. I point this out because it is the real threat. Yes, we have maybe a hijacking threat, but the real threat now, as we see it develop, is with respect to our seaports. That is why we started in the committee, some 4 years ago, with respect to seaport security. Only, last year in Italy we found a suspected al-Qaida terrorist network was operating, coming in through containers. There are some 5 million containers that come into the United States of America each year with 2 billion tons of freight. Only 2 percent of those containers are inspected at this time. But that one particular suspected terrorist had a bed and a toilet; he had his own power source and everything else like that ready to operate. He could just as easily have come, and may have, unbeknownst to us, into the United States of America. But let's go right to just last month, the oil tanker off of Yemen, the French tanker with some 60,000 tons of oil. As they blew up the USS Cole, they blew up this particular tanker. One can easily foresee that a regular tanker could come up the Delaware River with a suicidal al- Qaida group in operation or in control, where they throw the captain overboard and run it right into an oil tank farm there in Philadelphia, blowing the whole thing up, closing down the eastern seaboard. So we worked very hard on this legislation. I commend the Senate itself because it was last year at this time, and both sides of the aisle, under the leadership and working with my distinguished colleague, Senator McCain--the soon-to-be chairman again--we worked and unanimously reported out a port security bill from our Commerce Committee. We passed it in the Senate 100 to 0. It languished on the House side for some months. And it was in June that they finally passed it. And we have been with the staff. I must emphasize the outstanding work of our staff in this particular regard. We worked all summer long. We thank particularly our colleague Mr. Oberstar who worked with us as diligently as he could. In any event, now we have the conference report. It is not complete in the sense that it is not funded. We provide in here certain sums as is necessary to be reported to us in the Congress within 6 months. We tried to get funding. The Senate had approved a user fee. They called it a tax, and we had some effort over the summer working it out to make sure it was a user fee. Then they said it was an origination problem. Thereupon we said: All right. Just take the conference report. You introduce it. We are not proud of its origin particularly. And you put it in, and we will approve it on the Senate side. So that caused a great delay, but now it's ready to go. The Maritime Transportation Security Act will provide for the first time a national system for securing our maritime borders. Heretofore, we have known every plane that approaches the continental limits of the United States. They have transponders. We have the radar. We track them. But we couldn't tell what ship was coming, when it was coming, or how. We moved some weather satellites to repair that particular deficiency. We now know, with the Coast Guard working overtime, of the ships approaching. But we now have a secure system for our maritime borders. We have to first ask that the Secretary of Transportation conduct an assessment of all vessels and facilities on or near the water and identify the risks of being involved in an incident. Then we develop a port and area security plan. Let me emphasize, you have the Coast Guard. You have Customs. You have DEA. You have local law enforcement. You have the Immigration and Naturalization Service. When everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. Under the present law, the captain of the port is in charge. We haven't changed that, but we have given him assistance. We have the Coast Guard authorization bill also in this particular conference report, increasing the Coast Guard amounts and authorizations some $1 billion this fiscal year 2003 over 2002. So we are beginning now to upgrade the wherewithal of the Coast Guard itself that has been doing an outstanding job. The plans are based on the Coast Guard security recommendations, which they will make within 1 year, of all ports, facilities, and vessels determined to be vulnerable. They then have the local port security committees, which will coordinate the Federal, State, and local and private enforcement efforts. We have been doing this, I know in the ports of Charleston and several others on the eastern seaboard. They have just been awaiting this legislation to make sure we are working in lockstep with the Federal requirements. But then when I say they have to have the private efforts, think about it. If you went down to the Rio Grande, to the border, and to the State of Arizona and told a rancher down there: Wait a minute, there are some illegal immigrants coming across the border in the nighttime, and what you have to do is not only put a barbed wire enclosure around your particular ranch, but you have to turn the lights on at night and everything else like that, this is a private ranch, he would look at you and laugh. He would say: What are you talking about? That is what we are doing with respect to many of the ports that are operated privately. The Danes operate the Port of New York; the Chinese operate the Long Beach Port; the union operates the Seattle Port; the State of South Carolina operates our ports. So you can see this particular task has to be a comprehensive and coordinated effort. We then develop secure areas in the ports as part of the security plans. That is approved by the Department of Transportation. There is a grant program here of allocations to the different ports authority, the size, the threat, and whatever else is there. There is $90 million in research grants to be awarded to develop the methods to increase the ability of the U.S. Customs to inspect the merchandise. There is a $33 million program intended for the development of security training. There is an established maritime intelligence system to work with this new Department of Homeland Security. They have to take all of this information, not just from the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Secret Service, but the DEA in large measure furnishes intelligence. We will have transponders on the various vessels coming in. Within that year, we will have a certified system of transportation that is a secure system of transportation allowing for secure maritime borders. They will have to be screened prior to entry. The transportation oversight board will establish a security program to develop the secure areas as well as the standards. People working in those secure areas will be required to have background checks. Not everybody coming there delivering the Cokes for the Coke machine or whatever will need it, but there will be secure areas, and people working in them will have to have background checks. We have established a sea marshal program that the maritime folks have wanted for quite a while. We have an assessment of the foreign antiterrorism measure. And let me commend Mr. Bonner, the Director of Customs, who has already gone overseas and coordinated this. What we are doing is establishing assessment and check methods and secure methods for the ports of the cargo being loaded into the containers before they leave, let's say, the Port of London. We are going to have to do the same things to facilitate delivery when it comes into the United States. I emphasize the Coast Guard authorization bill. We haven't had one since 1998. We have been struggling with that. But now everybody has in their minds front and center the Coast Guard, the magnificent job it has been doing, even as it has been understaffed and underfunded. We are going to build that up. I yield such time as is necessary to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today, the Senate will pass legislation that authorizes the doubling of the National Science Foundation budget by fiscal year 2007. As you all know, NSF is the nation's premier federal science agency that invests in basic research across all disciplines. We rely on NSF research to open new frontiers of science, and I am proud that we can pass this important legislation today. We have approached this legislation in concert with our friends on the Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy and Gregg. Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with Chairman Boehlert and ranking member Ralph Hall of the House Science Committee. Obviously, we could not have produced this product without Senator McCain, Senator Rockefeller, and the other members of the Commerce Committee. We were also pleased to work with our friends, Senators Bond and Mikulski, who have been leaders on the NSF. This doubling bill is vital. The Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security, and former speaker Newt Gingrich, warned that our failure to invest in science and to reform math and science education was the second biggest threat to our national security. NSF is well positioned to address this threat. After all, NSF invests in math and science education from kindergarten all the way through to the post-doctoral level and beyond. This bill allows the Foundation to increase that investment, while reaffirming our commitment to women, minorities, and people with disabilities. These underrepresented groups, together, make up more than half of our nation's work force and are only increasing. Letting these groups fall by the wayside would not only threaten our economic competiveness, but also our national security. It is often said that more than one-half of our nation's economic growth since World War I has stemmed from technology driven by science. Let me give just one example of how NSF's investments can spur our economy. NSF is the leading agency in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Nanotechnology--which is the science of manipulating matter at the atomic and molecular level--will cut across every scientific discipline, including materials and manufacturing, healthcare and medicine, energy and the environment, agriculture, biotechnology, information technology, and national security. Worldwide, the market for nanotechnology is expected to be $1 trillion annually within 10 to 15 years. NSF's cross- disciplinary approach, which includes groundbreaking research into the way society and this new technology will interact, will help this nation take advantage of Nanotechnology sooner, better, and with greater confidence. Finally, I want to note that NSF is responsible for the overall health and well-being of the research enterprise in this country. Congress is now completing its 5-year commitment to double funding for the National Institutes of Health. We made that investment because we want to cure and prevent disease. But increasingly, it's not just the biomedical research that NIH supports that brings us breakthroughs. Recent advances in biomedical science have relied on advances in fields such as computer science, physics, and chemistry. For example, the sequencing of the human genome was enabled by powerful computers networked in innovative ways. The commitment that we are making today to science at NSF will build our base knowledge in non-medical fields to complement the research done at NIH. NSF research is not just for large universities. The Foundation's continued support for the EPSCoR program supports the development of the science and technology resources of individual states like South Carolina, through partnerships that involve the state's universities, industry, government, and the Federal research and development enterprise. These partnerships put researchers in these states in a better position to compete and win NSF grants. Mr. President, I think these arguments are solid, simple, and straightforward. We can talk about NSF's past outstanding contributions to science. We can talk about the future and the importance of science and technology to our economy. But, Mr. President, where the rubber meets the road, we have to stop talking and invest, with real money, in the science and engineering enterprise that will guaranty the health, economic viability, and security of our future. I, for one, appreciate the hard work that NSF has done over the past 52 years promoting the progress of science, and I thank my Senate colleagues for supporting me in providing this agency the resources needed to conquer tomorrow.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. To expedite enactment of the significant pipeline safety reforms included in this bill, the leadership of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has worked with the House Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy and Commerce in developing the compromise agreement. This Joint Explanatory Statement therefore represents the views of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, along with the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. This Joint Explanatory Statement will provide legislative history for interpreting this important pipeline safety legislation. I ask unanimous consent that this statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am pleased that last night the Senate unanimously passed pipeline safety legislation in the form of H.R. 3609, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. This bill is the product of over three years of bipartisan work and compromise, and I thank my colleague, Senator McCain, for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today in support of the substitute amendment to H.R. 3833, the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002. I am proud to co-sponsor this amendment with Senators Dorgan, Ensign, and Allen. This bipartisan legislation is a result of compromise and hard work by interested parties including Senators Dorgan, Ensign, Allen, and McCain. I also want to thank Representatives Shimkus, Markey, and Upton for their efforts in the House on the companion legislation. They have all demonstrated their commitment to making the Internet safe for children. In short, H.R. 3833 will create a safe haven for children on the Internet. It creates a domain designated strictly for minors-- ``.kids.us''. This new domain will allow parents to be confident that their child can experience the Internet, at least in part, without being exposed to objectionable material. Only content producers who can meet the standard of providing material suitable for minors will be allowed to register a .kids domain. Really, this bill is just a next step of sorts for me. After all, I have been a strong advocate for a safe harbor for television to ensure that children are protected from objectionable material. I am happy to see that we are now able to extend such protections online, ensuring that children can safely surf the Internet without being bombarded with images of sex, violence, and drugs or being lured by child predators. I am pleased that we have been able to reach an agreeable compromise on this bill and look forward to working with the Department of Commerce and the administrator for the U.S country code domain to implement this legislation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank Senator Hatch. Section 16 will ensure that our national security is protected while increasing critical research and development cyber-security programs.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The ranking member is correct. Our intent with this provision is not to create new immigration laws or grant new authority. Rather, this provision merely makes compliance with existing immigration laws a requirement for grant eligibility. We also recognize that this section cannot take effect until regulations are issued under 8 USC 1372(c)(1).

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch, regarding H.R. 3394, the Cyber Security Research and Development Act, which was passed by the Senate in October and is set for consideration by the House of Representatives today. Section 16 of the bill is intended to ensure that Federal grants and fellowships for cyber security research and development are not awarded to individuals violating the terms of his or her immigration status, individuals from States sponsoring terrorism, or institutions that are not in compliance with appropriate record keeping requirements for immigrant students.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I want to commend the Children's Hospital, of the Greenville, SC, Hospital System, for being honored by the National SAFE KIDS campaign as the best of the best in the Nation. Today, the No. 1 killer of children ages 14 and under is unintentional injury. Whether it is caused by children not wearing a helmet when riding a bike, or accidentally swallowing poison, or not buckling seat belts, or playing with matches--the National SAFE KIDS movement is taking every measure possible to educate American families to prevent such injuries. There are some 370 local SAFE KIDS coalitions in America and abroad working on this issue, and for Greenville to be named the 2002 SAFE KIDS Coalition of the Year is quite an honor. Greenville also was recognized for having the best national SAFE KIDS week in the Nation. Each year, Greenville hosts the event at a local mall, bringing together 800 volunteers to reach 5,000 children. I thank Greenville's Linda Brees, Musette Stern, Kathy Harper, and their network of community volunteers for making the safety of children a No. 1 priority in my home state.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, last month our extended Senate family suffered a great loss with the passing of Frances Humphrey Howard. I know her brother, our former colleague from Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey, would appreciate this body recognizing the important role she played. Frances Howard was always a trend setter. When few women went to college, she graduated with a master's degree. She worked for Eleanor Roosevelt. She was a foreign service officer for the State Department at a time when mostly men were in the foreign service. She worked for the National Institutes of Health as a liaison officer, developing programs for medical libraries. She sat on the board of several companies involved with the arts and social activism. And when her colleagues retired at 65, Frances worked until she was 85. Senator Humphrey adored his younger sister, and for good reason. He would not have been the warrior he was without his chief supporter, chief confidant, and chief campaigner. All of the important bills Senator Humphrey sponsored on civil rights, on Medicare, on the Peace Corps, and on the Food Stamp program were influenced by her concern for minorities, the elderly, the sick, and the hungry. She was a great advocate for laws that make a real difference in the lives of the neediest in this country. Frances' role was behind the scenes, but today, instead of always quitting her good job to help Senator Humphrey in his campaigns, she'd have run herself--and won. If Hubert were here we might be listening to all the stories, but they can be summed up in one sentence: During her sixty years as an activist in Washington, Frances Humphrey Howard truly made a difference. I know all of my colleagues, and especially our spouses, will miss Frances. My wife, Peatsy, joins me in extending our gratitude for her untiring efforts and our deepest sympathy to her children, Anne and William, and to the entire Humphrey family.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, liberal? Worse, The London Economist called Senator Wellstone the most ``left wing'' Senator in the U.S. Senate. Yet, as the most conservative Senator, I found myself time and again fighting at his side. The year started with the Bush seduction of Senator Ted Kennedy on education. Senator Kennedy looked at the amount--$7 billion. President Bush looked at the thrust--prove that public education was a failure so that private education could be financed by the Government. Testing. Somehow the billions being spent by the States on testing was not enough. A Federal test was necessary. Failing schools would be closed. Failing students would be tutored. But most likely, the student failing for the lack of a competent teacher could find no competent tutor. For all this testing, the education bill provided no help for the student to pass the test. And for this, Senator Wellstone ranted and raved. But nobody listened. Senator Wellstone was liberal, but as a conservative I knew he was right. We both voted no. Next was the Bush tax cut. No doubt Senator Wellstone, the liberal, was the target for this initiative. For the purpose of Voodoo II, or Bush's Reaganomics, was to eliminate the resources of Government so that without the money there would be no programs. But in reality, programs persevered, with a horrific debt, and the devastating waste of interest costs. Senator Wellstone, the liberal, was for programs. I, the conservative, was for putting Government on a pay-as-you-go path. We both voted no. Then there was jobs. Fast Track--this was a device that Presidents use to control trade agreements. With it, the agreement submitted by the President could not be amended. Congress was required to vote it up or down, and, of course, no agreement was ever submitted until the White House had the vote fixed. To get NAFTA approved, President Clinton bought the vote with numerous favors not related to the agreement, such as defense contracts, cultural centers, and golf rounds in California and Arkansas. One could readily see that the intent was to create jobs south of the border. Sure enough, we lost 700,000 textile jobs alone. So, when fast track expired, we refused to renew it for President Clinton. Again, Senator Wellstone and I both opposed giving fast track authority to President Bush. ``Liberal.'' ``Conservative.'' Wrong references. Adlai Stevenson used to say it's not whether one is liberal or one is conservative, but whether one is headed in the right direction. Adam Nagourney of the New York Times writes of the ``homogenization'' of American politics. Politics has changed. Triangulation has taken over so that every party compromises, or triangulates, the other party's issues. Both are for tax cuts. Both are for saving Social Security. Both are for defense. Both are for the war with Iraq. Both are for homeland security. Both are against corporate corruption. Worse, money locks in this triangulation so that we are back to George Wallace's, ``There's not a dime's bit of difference between the parties.'' But there is a fundamental difference. The Republicans know to campaign. The Democrats know to govern. Paul Wellstone came to Washington to govern. He could see the crying needs of the country: schools, health care, jobs, infrastructure, et cetera. And he was determined to do something to provide for these needs. But with the Democrats in control by only one vote, we abandoned governing. The needs of the country were abandoned and both parties went into high gear to campaign, with money controlling the issues. Y2K, free trade, corporate reform--money controlled with a refusal to even cancel the principal corruption: stock options. The Congress danced around the fire of intelligence failures, terrorism insurance, seaport security, rail security, energy policy, pension reform, prescription drugs--but no governing. Paul Wellstone was a fighter. The shortest fellow in the Congress, most of us couldn't touch his shoes. Today, there are no fighters in Washington, just campaigners.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. The great advantage of serving in the U.S. Senate is the exposure to your colleagues in the Senate, all who are talented, and the exposure to various individuals in Washington involved in the issues. The principal issue for one serving in the U.S. Senate is reelection. That's how I met Charles Guggenheim. It was 30 years ago. Charles had the reputation of producing the best candidate films and after handling me, remarkably, he retained that reputation. My staff had just contacted him when they came back to me and surprised me with the request that Charles wanted to follow me when I went home that weekend. I said let's wait, it's too early for filming. The answer was no, it's not for filming, Mr. Guggenheim wants to travel with you to see if he likes you. I said fair enough. I want to see if I like him. I will never forget that weekend. After reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the Rotary Club, the Realtors, the tobacco barn, the Democratic Party rally, and nine other times, I thought I may lose Charles. But he stuck with me. I learned to love him. There are two kinds of geniuses in this world: the intellectual and the sensitive. The intellectual is the type who goes through a magazine just turning the pages and catching up in the back part with the story, remembering it all. Or the type that reads a book in a couple of evenings. But then there is the sentimental genius. They feel the words. You tell me that a friend is sick and I feel sorry for him. You tell Charles a friend is sick and he starts feeling bad. No one could read people better. He would have me do one take over and over and over just to make sure the light was right, or the sound was exact, very sensitive to the environment and feelings of those around him. No doubt this made him an Oscar winner four times and a nominee twelve times. But this search for the authentic also made him give up on us politicians 20 years ago. The political short was no more the positive attributes of the candidate depicting his record in a colorful way, but the framing of the opponent with a half-truth, with a negative spin that meets the poll. Outrageous hypocrisy. Charles would have none of it and he turned exclusively to documentaries. Charles' brilliance was in telling the story so that you were there in the historic moment. I watched him in his work. We would meet at 6:30 in the morning two or three times a week at Ali Rosenberg's St. Albans for tennis. Ali didn't let us start until just before 7:00 so the three of us would chat about the events of the day. Charles had the keenest wit about the political happenings in Washington and, talking along, I realized his genius. It wasn't just the sensitivity, but the historian. For the D-Day film he searched the Pentagon archives for 2 years finding things that the military historians had no idea of. Then, to give life to the depiction, he searched to identify the exact outfit, down to the platoon or squad. Then he found a member of that platoon or squad still living to narrate the scene. For another 2 years he looked for Jewish POWs for his most recent film. He was mainly concerned about his own outfit from which he was separated. They were captured in the Battle of the Bulge; the Jewish prisoners separated and inflicted with torture and death. He wanted to tell this story of the POW Holocaust that had never been told. He was tickled that the weather was kind, just right for his takes at the prison camps in Germany. He smiled at his luck. And then the cancer hit. He struggled this year to finish the course. Amazing Grace, his beautiful daughter, worked with him to complete the film. In this city of families split asunder, the Guggenheims have shone as a star of cohesion. Jonathan worked as a Senate Page and now produces on the West coast. Davis has just completed a cameo production on education. And that gracious lovable Marion continues to worry about everybody except herself. Charles was particularly proud when he went west for his last nomination. His daughter-in-law, Elizabeth Shue, won an Oscar. Knowing Charles, the sensitive, the authentic, his was not to receive Oscars but to render to others in his film. But surely, if he had one to give, it would be to Marion.