Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, right to the point on Andean trade, we have supported it and we have indicated, of course, to the administration we would go along with an extension. However, we have given at the office, as the saying goes. I have lost 50,900 textile jobs since NAFTA, and I am wondering about these people talking of morality, if they would be glad to accept my amendment to include Brazil and orange juice. Wouldn't that be immoral? I have another moral for a motion on the Andean pact, and that is to get a little beef and wheat to Argentina; they are in desperate circumstances. Morally, under the good neighbor policy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, we Democrats ought to be morally committed to beef and wheat to Argentina. We have all kinds of amendments we can present. My point is, this country has lost its manufacturing capacity. That goes right to the heart of the economy and the recovery from the recession. Under the Marshall plan, yes, we sent over our technology and expertise. It worked. Capitalism conquered communism. However, there comes a time to face reality and that is that there is no such thing as free trade. We have the enemy within--the Business Roundtable. Boy, I have gotten awards from them. But what has happened over the years is they have moved their production. I would like to print in the Record about Jack Welch squeezing the lemon. He said on December 6, 2000, the year before last, squeeze the lemon. He said General Electric was not going to serve or contract with any supplier that didn't move to Mexico. So we have an affirmative action plan to get the jobs. Then comes free trade, promotes jobs. The gentleman Welch is squeezing something else. That is not a problem. I don't think we are going to handle that tonight. Let's now get on with what we are morally committed to on the idea of trade. I am morally committed to the economic strength of this country.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues an excellent column by Thomas E. Thornhill that appeared in Charleston's The Post and Courier on March 15, 2002. Mr. Thornhill points out the need to balance the environmental and esthetic consequences of expanding the port of Charleston with the economic benefits such expansion brings. As we debate what to do with the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge as part of the energy bill, I think it is important to add to our dialogue a perspective from someone who has seen the consequences of expansion in South Carolina, and who believes that nature mismanaged retaliates with relentless vengeance. I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows. [From the Post and Courier, Friday, Mar. 15, 2002.] Port of Charleston Should Live Within Nature's Tolerances (By Thomas E. Thornhill) How about a different slant on the port expansion issue? Do we really know what Charleston Harbor can tolerate? This is a finite body of water which has some limitations dictated by nature. Yes, expansion of the port facilities will mean more business, more trucks, more highway building, etc., but what will it do to our rivers and harbor? My brother and I have been working for water and soil conservation for over 40 years. Our father coined the phrase, ``Nature mismanaged, retaliates with relentless vengeance.'' We, the citizens, and the Corps of Engineers mismanaged nature with the diversion of the Santee River into the Cooper River, and we're still paying for it. We were pumping enough mud out of Charleston Harbor to cover peninsular Charleston by about 6 feet each year. That was reduced with another diversion or rediversion canal, but the mud continues to build up--just look at Drum Island and the Cooper side of Daniel Island--tons and tons of spoil pumped from the rivers.. We are not a locale of deep water; let's recognize that. You need only spend a few days in our creeks and marshes to know that we have that wonderful pluff mud, the nursery grounds for the Atlantic Coast fisheries, that does not and will not stay in place like rock and sand of other ports. Waterside construction causes the natural flow to slow and, in short order, the mud builds up. How else would we have land east of East Bay Street, which was the city sea wall. Look at the SPA Passenger Terminal, Yacht Basin, Maritime Center--full of mud. Examine the land around the Sheraton Hotel or Comfort Inn along the Ashley. It's sinking. There is no way to contain our mud except by gentle slopes and marshes. As we dig our channels deeper and deeper, we are mismanaging nature. We cannot dig 50-foot ditches in our rivers without causing sloughing off of the shoreline, the changing of the flow of our rivers, and the sinking of our highlands. The harbor jetties are blamed for the demise of Morris Island so that the lighthouse is now at sea. The jetties are blamed for changing the geography on Folly Island. Breakwaters, jetties and revetments are now outlawed as they caused more erosion that they were designed to cure. Charleston Harbor has limits dictated by nature. We cannot continue to defy natural laws by overbuilding our shorelines, packing our marshes with silt and fill, and overpopulating our water courses. We cannot be one of the largest shipping ports in the country and yet have the finest harbor resource on the East coast. We cannot fill our waterfronts with docks and still be America's Most Historic City and have the quality of life that goes with it. We cannot double the amount of super ships and still have one of the finest recreational and scenic harbors in the world--to say nothing about the inability of our transportation network to handle the additional load. Trucks are clogging I-26 and I-526 on any workday. Driving a car is hazardous. The State Ports Authority has done a magnificent job to make our port facilities and service the envy of the world. With this same talent, they now need to find a future that can live within the environmental restraints that nature has dealt us. Perhaps their future should be planned as though Daniel Island did not exist--the filling of those marshlands is damage enough. We must not, as the Bible teaches, ``sell our birthright for a mess of pottage.'' As a port, we should live within the hand dealt us by nature. As a port city, we should do the best with what we were given to save it for future generations. Remember that thousands of acres of marsh have been destroyed just to keep the harbor dredged and remember that every structure on a waterway or beach causes erosion problems elsewhere. Of course the Port produces jobs and economic benefit (it always has and will), but the incremental increase gained by increasing the size of port facilities is to the profit of a relatively small amount of the population, while those who live here must shoulder the burden, esthetically, economically and environmentally. ``Nature mismanaged retaliates with relentless vengeance.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Stevens, Inouye, Breaux, Nelson, and Feinstein to introduce the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act of 2002, legislation that will promote broadband and the digital television transition by securing content on the Internet and over the Nation's airwaves. For several years the private sector has attempted to secure a safe haven for copyrighted digital products, unfortunately with little to show for its efforts. The result has been an absence of robust, ubiquitous protections of digital media which has lead to a lack of content on the Internet and over the airwaves. And who has suffered the most? Consumers, as they are denied access to high quality digital content in the home. The reality is that a lack of security has enabled significant copyright privacy which drains America's content industries to the tune of billions of dollars every year. For example, the movie studios estimate that they lose over $3 billion annually by way of analog piracy. In order to pirate copyrighted movies via analog formats, an individual makes an illegal copy of the movie, sometimes by taping it in a movie theater with a personal video recorder, and then distributes it, in analog form, at discount. However, because subsequent copies of analog movies degrade over time, there is a limit to the success of this type of piracy. In a digital age, however, the privacy threat is exponentially magnified. So on the Internet, copyright content, be it a movie, a book, music, or software, travels in a digital language of 1s and 0s, and every copy of that content, from the 1st to the 1000th is as pristine as the original. Also, unlike an analog pirated movie, which must be physically packaged and transported, a digital copy can be sent around the world on the Internet with a single click of a mouse. The copyright industries are justifiably worried about distributing their content on the Internet absent strong copyright protection measures. As Internet access becomes increasingly available over high-speed, broadband connections, these worries will only heighten. It should be noted, however, that the Internet is not the only threat to unprotected digital content. Digital video programming is also subject to a large privacy threat. Rapid advances in consumer electronics make it easier to steal copyright content. Newly developed digital compression and memory technologies make it possible to store two complete movies on a device the size of a postage stamp. Today, digital media can be transmitted over wired or wireless channels and played and stored on a host of consumer electronics devices. By and large, these are positive developments for consumers. But any device that can legitimately play, copy, or electronically transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies are incorporated into such a device. Unfortunately, as technology has advanced, copy protection schemes have not kept pace, fostering a set of consumer expectations that at times actually promote illegal activity on the Internet. For example, according to a Jupiter Media Matrix report, over 7 million Americans use technology on the Internet to swap music and other digital media files. More recent news reports place this number at over 11 million. While some of this activity is legal, much of it is not. Every week a major magazine or newspaper reports on the thousands of illegal pirated works that are available for copying and redistribution online. Academy award winning motion pictures, platinum records, and Emmy award winning television shows--all for free, all illegal. Piracy is growing exponentially on college campuses and among tech savvy consumers. Such lawlessness contributes to the studios and record labels' reluctance to place their digital content on the Internet or over the airwaves. At the same time, millions of law abiding consumers find little reason to spend discretionary dollars on consumer electronics products whose value depends on their ability to receive, display and copy high quality digital content like popular movies, music, and video games. Accordingly, only early adopters have purchased high definition television sets or broadband Internet access, as these products remain priced too high for the average consumer. The facts are clear in this regard. Only two million Americans have purchased HDTV sets. As for broadband, rural and underserved areas aside, there is not an availability problem. There is a demand problem. Roughly 85 percent of Americans are offered broadband in the marketplace but only 10-12 percent have signed up. The fact is that most Americans are averse to paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2,000 for a fancy HDTV set that plays analog movies. But if more high-quality content were available, consumers might come. By unleashing an avalanche of digital content on broadband Internet connections as well as over the digital broadcast airwaves, we can change this dynamic and give consumers a reason to buy new consumer electronics and information technology products. To do so requires the development of a secure, protected environment to foster the widespread dissemination of digital content in these exciting new mediums. Although, it is technologically feasible to provide such a protected environment, the solution has not been forthcoming through voluntary private sector negotiations involving the industries with stakes in this matter. This is not to say, however, that those industries do not recognize the tremendous economic potential to be derived from a proliferation of top notch digital content to consumers in the home. The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries, for example, are tremendously excited about the possibility of providing their products to consumers over the Internet and the digital airwaves, provided they can be assured that those products' copyrights are not infringed in the process. Although marketplace negotiations have not provided such an assurance, a solution is at hand. Leaders in the consumer electronics, information technology, and content industries are America's best and brightest. They can solve this problem. The consumer electronics and high tech industries claim they are ready to do just that. America's top high-tech executives sent me a letter three weeks ago to that effect. While, I want to believe them, industry negotiations have been lagging. Both sides share some blame in this area. But the blame games need to end. It's time for results, not recriminations. I believe the private sector is capable, through marketplace negotiations--of adopting standards that will ensure the secure transmission of copyrighted content on the Internet and over the airwaves. But given the pace of private talks so far, the private sector needs a nudge. The government can provide that nudge, and in doing so continue the government's longstanding role in promoting, and sometimes requiring, the implementation of technological standards in electronics equipment to benefit consumers. We debated the merits of such an approach in the Commerce Committee on February 28, 2002 when the leaders of the copyright, consumer electronics, and information technology industries testified as to their distinct views on this issue. At that hearing, every Senator and every witness agreed that the problem of digital piracy requires resolution. Specifically, our hearing demonstrated that there are three discrete problem areas that merit government intervention. First, is the piracy threat presented toward unprotected digital broadcast television. Over the air broadcast digital signals cannot be encrypted because the millions of Americans who receive their signal via antennas cannot decrypt the signal. As a result, digital broadcast signals are delivered in unprotected format and are subject to illegal copying or redistribution over the Internet upon transmission. The technology exists today to solve this problem. It has been referred to as a ``broadcast flag'' which would instruct digital devices to prevent illegal copying and Internet retransmission of digital broadcast television. Consumer electronic devices would respond to the technology and prevent copyright infringement. However, because not every device would be required to respond to the technology, ubiquitous response requires a mandate by government. The second problem is commonly referred to as the ``Analog hole.'' As protected digital programming, usually delivered over satellite or cable, but also available on the Internet, is decrypted for viewing by consumers, most frequently on television sets, the programming is temporarily ``in the clear.'' At this point, pirates may have the opportunity to take advantage of an ``Analog hole'' by copying the content into a digital format, i.e. re-digitizing it, and then illegally copying and/or retransmitting the content. The technology to solve this problem either exists today, or will be available shortly. Regardless, the solution is technologically feasible. As with the ``broadcast flag'' the solution to the ``Analog hole'' will require a government mandate to ensure its ubiquitous adoption across consumer devices. The final problem poses the greatest threat. Literally millions of digital files of music and videos are illegally copied, downloaded, and transmitted over the Internet on a regular basis. Current digital rights management solutions are insufficient to rectify this problem. Some consumers resorting to illegal behavior do so unknowingly. Many others do so willingly. Regardless, consumers desire high-quality digital content on the Internet and it is not being provided in any widespread, legal fashion. Fortunately, a solution to this problem is also technologically feasible. It too will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption. While industries are at odds as to how to solve these critical content protection problems, the legislation we introduce today provides us with the tools to break the logjam. Specifically, the legislation requires the content, consumer electronics, and information technology industries to come together with representatives of consumer groups to develop standards, technologies, and encoding rules to safeguard digital content so that it will be made more readily available to consumers without being subject to piracy. The affected parties would have one year to reach agreement. The technologies would then be incorporated into all digital media devices to ensure universal protection for digital content and universal access to such content for consumers. The deadline on industry would work in the following fashion: if they come together to solve these problems in private sector talks, we will empower government enforcement so that all consumer devices comply. If they don't, the government, in consultation with the private sector, will have to step in. America's creative artists deserve our protection. Our copyright industries are among our greatest economic and creative assets. The framers recognized that innovation and creativity was instrumental to our country's economic health when they empowered Congress in the Constitution to protect copyrighted products. Now, however, copyrighted media products are delivered digitally, and copyright infringement is more difficult to detect and prevent. That is why strong technological protections need to be layered on top of the copyright laws, to complement the law as it exists today. Along those lines, I want to emphasize that this legislation does not alter existing copyright law. Copyright law rests squarely within the jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I hope to work closely with Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Hatch to stop copyright piracy in a digital age. Some have said that legislation is unwieldy in this area. But our legislation would not be the first time Congress imposed technological requirements to benefit consumers. And it won't be the last. We have been here before. In 1962, under the All Channel Receiver Act, Congress mandated that all television receivers include the capability to tune all channels, UHF and VHF, allocated to the television broadcast service. More recently, in 1998, Congress required that all analog VCRs recognize a standard copy control technology, know as ``Macrovision''. In the former case, the Federal Government and the Federal Communications Commission took the lead. In the latter case, industry first agreed to the `Macrovision' standard which Congress later codified by legislation. So, whether Congress or industry has led the way, the results have benefitted consumers and industry, by providing Americans with wider access to programming and content. Pursuant to the bill we introduce today, the standards, technologies, and encoding rule would work in the following manner. Digital content delivered over the Internet and over the broadcast airwaves would include instructions as to consumers' ability to copy available content and would prevent the illegal retransmission of that content over the Internet. Digital media devices such as televisions sets, cable boxes, and personal computers, would be manufactured to recognize and respond to those instructions to prevent illegal copying or redistribution. I want to stress, however, in the strongest terms possible, that the standards agreed to by industry would not be permitted to thwart legitimate consumer copying of programming in the home, for time shifting purposes, for example. Similarly, the technologies and encoding rules would be required to take into account the need to preserve fair use of otherwise protected content, for educational and research purposes for example. Specifically, our bill requires that encoding rules ``take into account limitations on exclusive rights of copyright holders, including the fair use doctrine.'' In addition, the legislation specifies that no copy protection technology may prevent consumers from ``making a personal copy for lawful use in the home'' of non pay-per-view television programming. I want to be clear on this point, no legislation can or should pass Congress in this area that does not seek to protect legitimate consumer copying and fair use practices. Critics of earlier drafts of our legislation painted it as heavy handed and awkward government selection of technologies. I want to respond. We have listened to their arguments delivered in dozens of meetings with my staff, and the bill we introduce today does nothing of the sort. Under the new legislation, if the required private sector negotiations fail, the FCC will begin a process, in consultation with those same private sector representatives, to implement technologically feasible solutions. So, in practice, the private sector, even in the event of a government initiated approach, will have every incentive and opportunity to guide a solution largely on its own. Critics of earlier discussion drafts of our legislation also claimed that it would freeze innovation and that any solutions would invariably be out of date shortly after they are selected due to the rapid and accelerated development of technology in the high tech sector. But here too we have listened and responded. Pursuant to our legislation, if the private sector determines that the selected technological solution needs to be updated or modified, they may do so. Its as simple as that. Such a change might be warranted because the technologies or encoding rules in use have been compromised by hackers or pirates. Or, technological improvements may be developed that ensure greater security for content, or more readily take into account consumers or researchers' fair use expectations. Regardless, in any of these instances, at any time, the legislation would allow the representatives of the content, consumer electronics, and information technology industries to implement any necessary modification of the agreed upon technologies. They could simply do so on their own, and then notify the FCC of their actions. At every stage in the process, the private sector, not the government, has the opportunity and the incentive to grab the reins. To date, however, this has not happened. The legislation we introduce today seeks to change that. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I want to congratulate the Girl Scouts of the USA on celebrating its 90th anniversary. Last night I attended the anniversary banquet with my wife, Peatsy, who has been involved with the Girl Scout leadership for many years. It never ceases to amaze me how this organization, with a membership of almost 4 million, has maintained the same core values it held 90 years ago; yet it still has changed with the times to empower girls of all races, all backgrounds, and all income levels to meet their full potential. Some two-thirds of the women members of Congress are Girl Scout alumni, and there is no question that more and more of our future business leaders, doctors, lawyers, educators, and community leaders will come from the Girl Scout ranks.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today, I, along with Senator Thurmond, introduce two duty suspensions designed to permit the import of raw materials into the United States duty free. The materials are not indigenous to or made in the United States. Therefore, their importation will not displace domestic sourcing. Moreover, because of the nature of the products at issue, they will assist in the creation of additional jobs in the United States. I believe that this is the most appropriate use of such legislation. The imported product will not displace any that is manufactured in the United States. Moreover, the imported product will assist in enhancing American productive capacity. I am therefore hopeful that this new capacity can be used to supply both domestic and foreign needs and will increase employment in the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, today, I, along with Senator Thurmond, introduce two duty suspensions designed to permit the import of raw materials into the United States duty free. The materials are not indigenous to or made in the United States. Therefore, their importation will not displace domestic sourcing. Moreover, because of the nature of the products at issue, they will assist in the creation of additional jobs in the United States. I believe that this is the most appropriate use of such legislation. The imported product will not displace any that is manufactured in the United States. Moreover, the imported product will assist in enhancing American productive capacity. I am therefore hopeful that this new capacity can be used to supply both domestic and foreign needs and will increase employment in the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, each day many of our Nation's children face illnesses that require a doctor's office or hospital visit. This can be a frightening experience, and underscores the need to provide quality pediatric health services, while easing the stress children and their families feel. The week of March 18th in Greenville, SC, The Greenville Hospital System Children's Hospital is celebrating Children and Healthcare Week with a number of valuable activities for health care professionals, parents, and community partners. The activities are aimed at increasing public, parental, and professional knowledge of the improvements that can be made in pediatric health care. In particular, it stresses new ways to meet the emotional and developmental needs of children in health care settings. Among the scheduled events are: continuing education classes for medical residents and support staff, an awards ceremony to honor local individuals who have dedicated their lives to pediatric care, a special tribute service to honor children, and a family event for employees. Lack of quality health care should never be an impediment to the long- term success of our nation's children, and I commend Greenville's dedication to Children and Healthcare Week.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to remember our friend, and outstanding former chairman of the Commerce Committee, Howard Cannon. I had the good fortune to serve with Senator Cannon for most of his four terms, and what set him above in my eyes was that he came from the school that the Senate is an institution where people get things done. Had it not been for this courageous vote to end a filibuster in 1964, the landmark civil rights legislation that has so dramatically changed this country would never have gotten to the Senate floor. It is almost 20 years since he left the Commerce Committee, and I find his shoes are still difficult to fill. We called him Mr. Aviation because he ended 40 years of federal control over the airlines. Had it not been for his interest in water projects and basic infrastructure, Las Vegas would not have had the phenomenal growth it has seen. No question, it is hard to find a Senator in the last half century whose loyalty to his convictions has made more lasting contributions to our nation and to his state. We will miss him. My wife Peatsy, and I want to express our deepest sympathy to his charming wife, Dorothy, and to their family.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be interested in working on it as well.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I remember reading about the incident as well.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that David Matsuda, a fellow from the Department of Transportation, be granted floor privileges during the discussion of the S. 517.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the National Defense Rail Act on behalf of myself and some 19 co-sponsors. This legislation will establish a strong and efficient national passenger rail system. For far too long, we have neglected investing in our Nation's passenger rail system. We have taken an active responsibility in developing the infrastructure of all other modes of transportation, whether it has been federally funding the development of the interstate highway system, subsidizing airport construction, or taking the responsibility for dredging harbors and channels or building locks and dams. Now it is time to build a world class passenger railroad system in the United States. We know it can be done. Japan and France provide two models of successful passenger railroad service. The time to move ahead is now. We cannot wait for highways and airports to become so clogged that they cannot operate any longer. Rail systems are not built in a day. We need to engage in long-term planning to address future passenger transportation growth and show forethought in crafting transportation solutions--not wait for an impending crisis. My legislation provides the vision to begin to do this. The atrocious events of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath which followed, exposed the vulnerability of our society and our economy when transportation choices are limited and our mobility is diminished. In the aftermath of the horrific attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we were forced to adjust to a transportation system that was without access to aviation. That should make us all evaluate the problems inherent in a policy that results in overall dependence on any one particular mode of transportation. We need to have a more balanced system of transportation for passengers in this country. Our economy depends on it; our travelers deserve it; and our roads and airports could operate more efficiently in a balanced system. After the Federal Aviation Administration grounded all flights following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, travelers flocked to Amtrak. Whether people had to travel for business, to help with rescue efforts, or just to get home, Amtrak kept our American citizens moving during a time of national emergency. The situation not only proved that Amtrak works, but that passenger rail is a critical part of our transportation infrastructure during a national emergency or security crisis. Amtrak provided a critical transportation link, carrying 35,000 passengers along the Northeast corridor every day, and hundreds of extra carloads of mail for the U.S. Postal Office in the days following the terrorist attacks. Transportation security--an essential part of our national security-- requires a balanced and competitive system of transportation alternatives. In September, we found that our dependence on the aviation system almost crippled us. We cannot afford to rely on any single mode of transportation; we need to ensure that we have a balanced system that includes a sound passenger rail system. We also know that passenger railroads use less fuel per passenger mile than highway vehicles and commercial airlines. During these times of oil- consciousness, a larger presence of passenger rail in our transportation system would reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Passenger railroads, the interstate highway system, and our national aviation network have all taken different paths to their current roles in our national transportation system. The tales of their development stand in quite a stark contrast from each other. The interstate highway system has received significant attention and federal funding since the construction of the Lincoln Highway in 1913 and the Rural Post Roads Act of 1916, and later during World War II with the Federal Highway Act of 1944. It was not until 1956, however, that the Government began heavily promoting highway transportation with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The act established a Highway Trust Fund based upon Federal user taxes, in order to finance up to 90 percent of State construction costs of the $25 billion plan to pay for new roads, and the construction of the Eisenhower National Interstate and Defense Highway System. Similar policies and Federal attention for aviation resulted in a strengthened infrastructure, and follows much the same story of the highways system. Passenger rail service was once a vital instrument in the transportation needs of our Nation. For instance, during World War II, not only did the railroads transport 90 percent of all defense freight, but also 97 percent of all defense personnel on their way to theaters of action. By the end of the war, railroads accounted for three- quarters of the common carrier share of intercity traffic, with airplanes and buses sharing the remaining quarter of traffic. However, with national focus turned to aviation and highways, by the late 1960s most rail companies were petitioning the Government to discontinue passenger services because of losses. Amtrak was created as a Federal corporation in order to relieve the railroad industry of these unprofitable passenger operations, and in the interest of maintaining a national passenger rail network. But in retrospect, Amtrak was set up not to thrive and expand passenger rail service, but really to just maintain the status quo of 30 years ago. That attitude persists even today. Since 1971, Amtrak has received only $25 billion in public subsidies; during that period, the United States invested $750 billion on highways and aviation. So one problem becomes all too clear--that U.S. passenger rail infrastructure has no stable funding source in contrast to highways, aviation, and transit. In fact, per capita spending on passenger rail is much lower than many other countries: the U.S. ranks behind Britain, France, Japan, Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Norway, Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia, Portugal, Poland, South Africa, Greece, and Estonia. Imagine that of the 23 industrialized nations with rail service, we are at the bottom. Including these countries, no passenger rail service in the world has built and operated a passenger rail system at a profit. All have required Government support for construction and maintenance, or operating support, or both. That same principle holds true for highways and aviation, which have required substantial Federal spending since their beginning and continue to receive generous Federal subsidies today. Those who want passenger rail to operate without Federal assistance-- ultimately forcing more travelers onto cars, buses and airplanes--argue that we should not ``subsidize'' passenger rail. But we subsidize the building of roads and highways with tax dollars. We subsidize the building of airports and pay for all of the equipment and people needed to run our air traffic control system. We consider those subsidies to be worthwhile investments in our economy and our quality of life. We must make the same investment to create a world-class passenger rail system in order to see the same kinds of benefits. While that argument should stand on its own, here's something the highway and airline crowd can take to the bank: moving more short-haul travelers to rail service reduces congestion on our already overcrowded highways and eases congestion at airports. It also provides real competition to airlines on short-haul trips. Over the past 30 years, the lack of investment and attention to the needs of passenger rail infrastructure has resulted in a weak passenger rail network, and has caused a strain on the capacity of other modes of transportation in many areas of the country. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, and preceding statutes, resulted in creating conflicting missions for Amtrak: serve a public function by operating unprofitable long-distance routes, but also attempt to operate at a profit. To add insult to injury, Amtrak has been forced to delay capital improvement projects having important long-term benefits in order to attempt to meet the mandate of the 1997 Act. Congress passed this misguided law in 1997, requiring Amtrak to operate without government support by the end of fiscal year 2002. But there is no truly national passenger train service in the world that makes a profit. Requiring Amtrak to make a profit has forced the railroad to forgo long-term capital investments in favor of short-term, bond payment shell games. Instead of investing in modern trains and infrastructure upgrades, Amtrak was forced to mortgage Penn Station just to pay the electric bill. From this, it is evident that we need to reevaluate our Nation's rail passenger policy, and clearly define a role for Amtrak. A strong Federal role was required to establish the interstate highway system and the Federal aviation network. And now Federal investment in passenger rail infrastructure is critical; once again, Federal leadership is required to address the needs of a reliable, safe, secure passenger rail network. This legislation provides a blueprint for the future of passenger rail in the United States. The bill will help develop high-speed rail corridors, which are the building blocks for a national passenger rail system. This will allow regional transportation solutions to play a part in the national system. It will also aid in the development of short distance corridors between larger urban centers, as well as provide funding to preserve longer distance routes for those communities that do not have the population densities to merit air service--sometimes the train is their only alternative to driving. Finally, it will provide Amtrak with the tools and funding it needs to operate efficiently. This legislation authorizes $1.255 billion in emergency spending for Amtrak's security and life safety needs. Similar language was included in the Rail Security Act, S. 1550, which was favorably reported by the committee on October 17, 2001. In that legislation, we authorized funds to be spent on immediate rail security needs, such as hiring more police officers across the entire Amtrak system and modernizing the safety infrastructure of old tunnels. This bill will give the Federal Government the script for the role it needs to play in establishing a national rail passenger system. It would not require any State contribution, and would give preference to projects having right-of-way dedicated to passenger rail, involving high-speed passenger service of 125 mph, although operations of 90 mph speeds or more would be eligible for funding, and those connecting to other modes of passenger transportation, including airports. The bill authorizes $1.5 billion annually for corridor development. These funds are needed for infrastructure acquisition, highway-rail grade crossing improvement/elimination, acquisition of rolling stock and track and signal equipment. Development of a national passenger rail system carries a high cost, and the Federal Government must take the lead role in funding it. This bill will also fund $35 billion in loan guarantees. This money will dramatically expand the current Railroad Rehabilitation & Infrastructure Financing loan and loan guarantee program. But we also must restructure that program. Since it was created in 1998 as part of TEA-21 bill, the program has processed only a few loans due to unreasonable constraints imposed by OMB. Our bill eliminates the artificial limits on loan amounts, impossible collateral requirements, and unworkable loan cohort structures. This bill identifies existing high-speed corridors in 29 States and the District of Columbia for priority consideration. Many of these corridors are in areas where people are now driving cars or taking airplanes on trips of 300 miles or less. In these areas, like the East Coast, travelers could take a high-speed train instead and arrive at about the same time. But right now they don't have that rail option, and they won't until we build it. The passenger railroad system that has worked well in the Northeast can work in other highly-congested areas of the country: the South, the Midwest, California and the Northwest. Thirty years ago, those areas did not have the population to support high-speed intercity rail. But today those areas are growing by leaps and bounds. As the highways in those areas clog up and the planes run 3 hours late, their Governors-- many of them Republicans--are asking us for help to build high speed rail. A short-term benefit of this legislation will be stimulation of the economy by providing jobs in developing new corridors. This bill ensures that fair labor standards for all projects receiving funds under it, including payment of prevailing wages and allowance of collective bargaining over wage rates. Another immediate benefit will be the closing/improvement of highway- rail grade crossings in high-speed rail corridors. Under this bill, funds are set aside specifically for these important safety improvements. This legislation will provide the necessary funds of $1.31 billion for Amtrak to repair and upgrade the track it owns and operates in the Northeast corridor. This corridor is a prime example of the benefits we can attain when there are transportation choices for travelers. The Northeast corridor has become an invaluable asset to our national transportation system, and it should not be left in disrepair. This bill authorizes funds to enable Amtrak to eliminate its capital backlog of projects, maintain ongoing projects to capital infrastructure, and improve capacity to accommodate projected growth in traffic. It also allows Amtrak to reinvest revenues from operations in the Northeast corridor back into the backlog of capital infrastructure projects. In a nutshell, this is our long term plan to make passenger rail a part of our balanced transportation system. But in the short run, we must make sure Amtrak's financial foundation is strong at a time when we are relying on them more than ever. Amtrak's ridership has increased consistently, and they now carry over 22 million passengers per year. This legislation will give Amtrak the tools and funding they need to create a modern, efficient passenger railroad. The bill reauthorizes Amtrak for 5 years, and fully funds their capital needs and the operating losses with respect to long-distance service. This legislation repeals the unrealistic operating self-sufficiency requirements. It also authorizes funding for compliance with environmental standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This legislation will further aid Amtrak to operate more efficiently. It will require Amtrak to reinvest revenues from non-passenger operations into growth projects outside the Northeast corridor. It will require revenue from the Northeast corridor to be reinvested into capital projects on the Northeast corridor. Finally, it will require an annual independent audit of Amtrak, to be reviewed by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General. I am pleased my colleagues have joined with me in sponsoring this bill. By developing passenger rail as part of a balanced transportation system, this legislation will lead to the creation of jobs in the short run to stimulate our economy. In the long run, high-speed rail corridors will become a key foundation for our national rail passenger transportation system, which is critical to the strong backbone of a prosperous economy. Like the interstate highway system, the benefits of passenger rail and Amtrak could be immeasurable, so we have much at stake. While I have outlined an ambitious blueprint, I keep in mind that 50 years ago, the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was ``pie in the sky.'' Now our successful Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways and national aviation network are used by many, so much that in many places they are congested and strained to capacity. We should not wait until our current transportation problems reach epidemic proportions; our economy cannot afford it. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and an outline of the finances of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the most distinguished assistant majority leader. (The remarks of Mr. Hollings pertaining to the introduction of S. 1991 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Murkowski for their courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the National Defense Rail Act on behalf of myself and some 19 co-sponsors. This legislation will establish a strong and efficient national passenger rail system. For far too long, we have neglected investing in our Nation's passenger rail system. We have taken an active responsibility in developing the infrastructure of all other modes of transportation, whether it has been federally funding the development of the interstate highway system, subsidizing airport construction, or taking the responsibility for dredging harbors and channels or building locks and dams. Now it is time to build a world class passenger railroad system in the United States. We know it can be done. Japan and France provide two models of successful passenger railroad service. The time to move ahead is now. We cannot wait for highways and airports to become so clogged that they cannot operate any longer. Rail systems are not built in a day. We need to engage in long-term planning to address future passenger transportation growth and show forethought in crafting transportation solutions--not wait for an impending crisis. My legislation provides the vision to begin to do this. The atrocious events of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath which followed, exposed the vulnerability of our society and our economy when transportation choices are limited and our mobility is diminished. In the aftermath of the horrific attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we were forced to adjust to a transportation system that was without access to aviation. That should make us all evaluate the problems inherent in a policy that results in overall dependence on any one particular mode of transportation. We need to have a more balanced system of transportation for passengers in this country. Our economy depends on it; our travelers deserve it; and our roads and airports could operate more efficiently in a balanced system. After the Federal Aviation Administration grounded all flights following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, travelers flocked to Amtrak. Whether people had to travel for business, to help with rescue efforts, or just to get home, Amtrak kept our American citizens moving during a time of national emergency. The situation not only proved that Amtrak works, but that passenger rail is a critical part of our transportation infrastructure during a national emergency or security crisis. Amtrak provided a critical transportation link, carrying 35,000 passengers along the Northeast corridor every day, and hundreds of extra carloads of mail for the U.S. Postal Office in the days following the terrorist attacks. Transportation security--an essential part of our national security-- requires a balanced and competitive system of transportation alternatives. In September, we found that our dependence on the aviation system almost crippled us. We cannot afford to rely on any single mode of transportation; we need to ensure that we have a balanced system that includes a sound passenger rail system. We also know that passenger railroads use less fuel per passenger mile than highway vehicles and commercial airlines. During these times of oil- consciousness, a larger presence of passenger rail in our transportation system would reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Passenger railroads, the interstate highway system, and our national aviation network have all taken different paths to their current roles in our national transportation system. The tales of their development stand in quite a stark contrast from each other. The interstate highway system has received significant attention and federal funding since the construction of the Lincoln Highway in 1913 and the Rural Post Roads Act of 1916, and later during World War II with the Federal Highway Act of 1944. It was not until 1956, however, that the Government began heavily promoting highway transportation with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The act established a Highway Trust Fund based upon Federal user taxes, in order to finance up to 90 percent of State construction costs of the $25 billion plan to pay for new roads, and the construction of the Eisenhower National Interstate and Defense Highway System. Similar policies and Federal attention for aviation resulted in a strengthened infrastructure, and follows much the same story of the highways system. Passenger rail service was once a vital instrument in the transportation needs of our Nation. For instance, during World War II, not only did the railroads transport 90 percent of all defense freight, but also 97 percent of all defense personnel on their way to theaters of action. By the end of the war, railroads accounted for three- quarters of the common carrier share of intercity traffic, with airplanes and buses sharing the remaining quarter of traffic. However, with national focus turned to aviation and highways, by the late 1960s most rail companies were petitioning the Government to discontinue passenger services because of losses. Amtrak was created as a Federal corporation in order to relieve the railroad industry of these unprofitable passenger operations, and in the interest of maintaining a national passenger rail network. But in retrospect, Amtrak was set up not to thrive and expand passenger rail service, but really to just maintain the status quo of 30 years ago. That attitude persists even today. Since 1971, Amtrak has received only $25 billion in public subsidies; during that period, the United States invested $750 billion on highways and aviation. So one problem becomes all too clear--that U.S. passenger rail infrastructure has no stable funding source in contrast to highways, aviation, and transit. In fact, per capita spending on passenger rail is much lower than many other countries: the U.S. ranks behind Britain, France, Japan, Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Norway, Czech Republic, Finland, Slovakia, Portugal, Poland, South Africa, Greece, and Estonia. Imagine that of the 23 industrialized nations with rail service, we are at the bottom. Including these countries, no passenger rail service in the world has built and operated a passenger rail system at a profit. All have required Government support for construction and maintenance, or operating support, or both. That same principle holds true for highways and aviation, which have required substantial Federal spending since their beginning and continue to receive generous Federal subsidies today. Those who want passenger rail to operate without Federal assistance-- ultimately forcing more travelers onto cars, buses and airplanes--argue that we should not ``subsidize'' passenger rail. But we subsidize the building of roads and highways with tax dollars. We subsidize the building of airports and pay for all of the equipment and people needed to run our air traffic control system. We consider those subsidies to be worthwhile investments in our economy and our quality of life. We must make the same investment to create a world-class passenger rail system in order to see the same kinds of benefits. While that argument should stand on its own, here's something the highway and airline crowd can take to the bank: moving more short-haul travelers to rail service reduces congestion on our already overcrowded highways and eases congestion at airports. It also provides real competition to airlines on short-haul trips. Over the past 30 years, the lack of investment and attention to the needs of passenger rail infrastructure has resulted in a weak passenger rail network, and has caused a strain on the capacity of other modes of transportation in many areas of the country. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, and preceding statutes, resulted in creating conflicting missions for Amtrak: serve a public function by operating unprofitable long-distance routes, but also attempt to operate at a profit. To add insult to injury, Amtrak has been forced to delay capital improvement projects having important long-term benefits in order to attempt to meet the mandate of the 1997 Act. Congress passed this misguided law in 1997, requiring Amtrak to operate without government support by the end of fiscal year 2002. But there is no truly national passenger train service in the world that makes a profit. Requiring Amtrak to make a profit has forced the railroad to forgo long-term capital investments in favor of short-term, bond payment shell games. Instead of investing in modern trains and infrastructure upgrades, Amtrak was forced to mortgage Penn Station just to pay the electric bill. From this, it is evident that we need to reevaluate our Nation's rail passenger policy, and clearly define a role for Amtrak. A strong Federal role was required to establish the interstate highway system and the Federal aviation network. And now Federal investment in passenger rail infrastructure is critical; once again, Federal leadership is required to address the needs of a reliable, safe, secure passenger rail network. This legislation provides a blueprint for the future of passenger rail in the United States. The bill will help develop high-speed rail corridors, which are the building blocks for a national passenger rail system. This will allow regional transportation solutions to play a part in the national system. It will also aid in the development of short distance corridors between larger urban centers, as well as provide funding to preserve longer distance routes for those communities that do not have the population densities to merit air service--sometimes the train is their only alternative to driving. Finally, it will provide Amtrak with the tools and funding it needs to operate efficiently. This legislation authorizes $1.255 billion in emergency spending for Amtrak's security and life safety needs. Similar language was included in the Rail Security Act, S. 1550, which was favorably reported by the committee on October 17, 2001. In that legislation, we authorized funds to be spent on immediate rail security needs, such as hiring more police officers across the entire Amtrak system and modernizing the safety infrastructure of old tunnels. This bill will give the Federal Government the script for the role it needs to play in establishing a national rail passenger system. It would not require any State contribution, and would give preference to projects having right-of-way dedicated to passenger rail, involving high-speed passenger service of 125 mph, although operations of 90 mph speeds or more would be eligible for funding, and those connecting to other modes of passenger transportation, including airports. The bill authorizes $1.5 billion annually for corridor development. These funds are needed for infrastructure acquisition, highway-rail grade crossing improvement/elimination, acquisition of rolling stock and track and signal equipment. Development of a national passenger rail system carries a high cost, and the Federal Government must take the lead role in funding it. This bill will also fund $35 billion in loan guarantees. This money will dramatically expand the current Railroad Rehabilitation & Infrastructure Financing loan and loan guarantee program. But we also must restructure that program. Since it was created in 1998 as part of TEA-21 bill, the program has processed only a few loans due to unreasonable constraints imposed by OMB. Our bill eliminates the artificial limits on loan amounts, impossible collateral requirements, and unworkable loan cohort structures. This bill identifies existing high-speed corridors in 29 States and the District of Columbia for priority consideration. Many of these corridors are in areas where people are now driving cars or taking airplanes on trips of 300 miles or less. In these areas, like the East Coast, travelers could take a high-speed train instead and arrive at about the same time. But right now they don't have that rail option, and they won't until we build it. The passenger railroad system that has worked well in the Northeast can work in other highly-congested areas of the country: the South, the Midwest, California and the Northwest. Thirty years ago, those areas did not have the population to support high-speed intercity rail. But today those areas are growing by leaps and bounds. As the highways in those areas clog up and the planes run 3 hours late, their Governors-- many of them Republicans--are asking us for help to build high speed rail. A short-term benefit of this legislation will be stimulation of the economy by providing jobs in developing new corridors. This bill ensures that fair labor standards for all projects receiving funds under it, including payment of prevailing wages and allowance of collective bargaining over wage rates. Another immediate benefit will be the closing/improvement of highway- rail grade crossings in high-speed rail corridors. Under this bill, funds are set aside specifically for these important safety improvements. This legislation will provide the necessary funds of $1.31 billion for Amtrak to repair and upgrade the track it owns and operates in the Northeast corridor. This corridor is a prime example of the benefits we can attain when there are transportation choices for travelers. The Northeast corridor has become an invaluable asset to our national transportation system, and it should not be left in disrepair. This bill authorizes funds to enable Amtrak to eliminate its capital backlog of projects, maintain ongoing projects to capital infrastructure, and improve capacity to accommodate projected growth in traffic. It also allows Amtrak to reinvest revenues from operations in the Northeast corridor back into the backlog of capital infrastructure projects. In a nutshell, this is our long term plan to make passenger rail a part of our balanced transportation system. But in the short run, we must make sure Amtrak's financial foundation is strong at a time when we are relying on them more than ever. Amtrak's ridership has increased consistently, and they now carry over 22 million passengers per year. This legislation will give Amtrak the tools and funding they need to create a modern, efficient passenger railroad. The bill reauthorizes Amtrak for 5 years, and fully funds their capital needs and the operating losses with respect to long-distance service. This legislation repeals the unrealistic operating self-sufficiency requirements. It also authorizes funding for compliance with environmental standards, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. This legislation will further aid Amtrak to operate more efficiently. It will require Amtrak to reinvest revenues from non-passenger operations into growth projects outside the Northeast corridor. It will require revenue from the Northeast corridor to be reinvested into capital projects on the Northeast corridor. Finally, it will require an annual independent audit of Amtrak, to be reviewed by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General. I am pleased my colleagues have joined with me in sponsoring this bill. By developing passenger rail as part of a balanced transportation system, this legislation will lead to the creation of jobs in the short run to stimulate our economy. In the long run, high-speed rail corridors will become a key foundation for our national rail passenger transportation system, which is critical to the strong backbone of a prosperous economy. Like the interstate highway system, the benefits of passenger rail and Amtrak could be immeasurable, so we have much at stake. While I have outlined an ambitious blueprint, I keep in mind that 50 years ago, the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was ``pie in the sky.'' Now our successful Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways and national aviation network are used by many, so much that in many places they are congested and strained to capacity. We should not wait until our current transportation problems reach epidemic proportions; our economy cannot afford it. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and an outline of the finances of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for the past 17 years, James Varey has served this institution with distinction, and I want to congratulate him and wish him the best in his retirement. As the Capitol Chief of Police since May 2000, he has been the best of the best at one of the most difficult times in our history. The Capitol Police has never had to respond to the terrible problems we have seen in the last 6 months, be it terrorist threats, or anthrax attacks, but because of the strong leadership at the top, this institution has remained strong and open to the public. The force will miss Chief Varey's great advocacy on their behalf, which resulted in such new resources as the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. We will certainly miss the friendly spirit he has displayed to the entire Senate family. Most of all, the institution will miss his dedication and hard work.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel The Islander, Official Number SC9279BJ, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, of the U.S. Code. The Islander is a commuter launch vessel that is intended for commercial use. It is 40 feet in length, and 13 feet in breadth, has a draw of 3 and one half feet, and is self-propelled. The vessel was purchased by Robert ``Scott'' Fales of Charleston, South Carolina, who purchased it with the intention of using it for the transportation of passengers. However, proof of the origin of this vessel is unknown, and it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purposes. The ship was bought from a boatyard and was built by the Wyman Company. Although records show that the Wyman Companies were based in New Haven, CT, Mr. Fales has been unable to provide conclusive proof that the vessel was U.S. built. He has invested a considerable amount of money in the vessel, and without a Jones Act waiver for the ship, he will be forced to sell it. Mr. Fales is seeking this waiver because his plans to use the vessel for the transportation of passengers. This usage will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in the U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention the comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel The Islander, Official Number SC9279BJ, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, of the U.S. Code. The Islander is a commuter launch vessel that is intended for commercial use. It is 40 feet in length, and 13 feet in breadth, has a draw of 3 and one half feet, and is self-propelled. The vessel was purchased by Robert ``Scott'' Fales of Charleston, South Carolina, who purchased it with the intention of using it for the transportation of passengers. However, proof of the origin of this vessel is unknown, and it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purposes. The ship was bought from a boatyard and was built by the Wyman Company. Although records show that the Wyman Companies were based in New Haven, CT, Mr. Fales has been unable to provide conclusive proof that the vessel was U.S. built. He has invested a considerable amount of money in the vessel, and without a Jones Act waiver for the ship, he will be forced to sell it. Mr. Fales is seeking this waiver because his plans to use the vessel for the transportation of passengers. This usage will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in the U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention the comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the communications bill by Congressmen Tauzin and Dingell that the House will vote on this week is blasphemy. Hailed as a way to enhance competition, it eliminates it. Touted as a way to enhance broadband communications, it merely allows the Bell companies to extend their local monopoly into broadband. I know the Bells' tricks, based on past performance. In 1984 when Judge Harold Green broke up AT&T's monopoly in long distance, he required AT&T to sell long distance services at wholesale. This resulted in brisk new competition among MCI, Sprint, and GTE that lowered prices for consumers. AT&T's local business was split into seven Bell companies. But they retained their monopoly in local service, guaranteeing no competition, but a guaranteed profit for them. In the early 1990s the Bells decided they, too, wanted to compete in long distance. Congress agreed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but first we employed the Judge Green approach by requiring access to the Bell network by competitors. For one full year, the Bell lawyers hammered out a step-by-step process how to open their networks. They came up with a 14-point checklist, and once they complied, the Bells could offer long distance in their region. They were so eager, they told us they would comply within a year. Thus, the 1996 Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 91 to 5 and in the House by a vote of 414 to 16. But instead of moving into long distance, the Bells immediately launched a 6-year stonewalling in the courts against competition. First, they claimed unconstitutional what their lawyers had just written. They lost at the Supreme Court. And instead of competing, they extended their monopoly by combining: Southwest Bell bought Pacific Bell and Ameritech calling it SBC; Qwest bought US West, Bell Atlantic bought NYNEX and GTE calling it Verizon; and BellSouth joined in holding off competition. Time and again the FCC and State commissions fined the Bells for violating the checklist they wrote. So far they have been fined upwards of $1.8 billion. But what do they care? The Bells merely write off these fines in their rates and continue their monopolistic conduct. To their credit, Verizon and SBC moved to qualify for long distance in a few States, but today the Bells control roughly 93 percent of the last lines for communication into every home and business in America. They contend that they are forced to provide access to their network while cable is not. But the move should be toward competition, not monopolization; and the Bells should simply comply with the law they wrote. Now comes the Bells' grand maneuver--Tauzin-Dingell. It veritably repeals access requirements and the roadmap for opening the Bell markets to competition. Worse, the FCC and all State commissions' safeguards as to pricing and service by the Bell companies are repealed, further strengthening their monopoly control. Pass Tauzin-Dingell and long distance companies will have to either submit or sell to the local Bell monopoly. The competitors spawned by the 1996 Act are already on the ropes. Just the threat of enactment of Tauzin-Dingell has caused the capital markets to freeze their financing, and some 200 companies have dropped like flies. Passage of Tauzin-Dingell will squash them totally and the country will return to an AT&T-like monopoly control of communications. At present, there is no legal restriction upon the Bells or anyone from providing broadband. The problem is not availability, but demand. In fact, broadband is already available to 80 percent of Americans. But only one in four Americans who have Internet in their homes are signed up for broadband. Who wants to pay $50 a month for faster access to their e-mail? Content providers are awaiting copyright protection legislation before they render more content for broadband users, and the lack of legislation protecting privacy on the Internet keeps users away. Where there is an availability problem, of course Congress should assist in extending broadband to rural and economically depressed areas. Bills for rural subsidies and tax credits are now pending in Congress. But the first order of business is to defeat the monopoly grab of Tauzin-Dingell, and then enforce the intent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its proper filing with our distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee and the principal author of our election reform bill, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No, filing it for your consideration because I have been working with Senator Specter--it is a study, not an actual requirement.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, and myself are cosponsoring an amendment that I think will be agreed to because it is merely a study. Our hope is to try to change the day the elections are, so as to really promote campaign reform In my experience over the years, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November is just an arbitrary choice of the middle of the week, whereby we have less than half of our electorate actually participating. For industrialized countries, you might say we have the least. The only other countries I have been able to find that have a middle-of- the-week election day are the Dominican Republic and Belize. The industrialized countries all have far greater participation by the electorate. Right to the point, it is really inconvenient to hold an election on a workday. It is not a holiday. People come early in the morning, before going to work, and already there is a long line. So they leave, and the next thing you know they go to work and say they couldn't get off in time at night to go and vote. The Senator from Nevada and I are convinced we can select a better day. We all thought, of course, of Saturday. But our religious friends who do not participate in civic activities on a Saturday would have some misgiving about that particular selection. Similarly, people would have misgivings with respect to the selection of a Sunday, which is the day used in many industrialized countries. The bottom line is, I think perhaps Veterans Day, which is already a holiday, could be an alternative. The whole idea is to get a day that is a holiday. No one wants to add another holiday to the calendar year. But if we put it on Veterans Day, veterans couldn't have any better celebration than participating in democracy. They have given their lives to preserve democracy in wars overseas. What better way to celebrate, in addition to Veterans Day parades and other kinds of celebrations, than to also celebrate by going to the polls and voting. Take that particular day--Armistice Day, November 11--and open the polls. Of course, the idea here is to proclaim a day, other than Saturday or Sunday, so as not to get into the same problem. This year, for example, I think election day is November 5, and then November 11 is Veterans Day, which is the next Monday. I hope, given a deliberate study and consensus being developed, we can very promptly put in this particular reform. It is not just machines and chads and other things down in Florida that causes election problems. The problem is the working population. In many instances, they do not want to irritate their bosses by taking time off to vote. The attitude is developed by us in public life that there is something wrong in participating in politics. That has to be changed. One quick way to change it and one quick way to really enhance the participation of our electorate in these elections is to have it a holiday and perhaps select Veterans Day. It could be the study would recommend another approach on Saturday or Sunday or whatever, but the important thing is that we do have a day off so we can participate in the most important function of our entire democracy. I suggest the absence of a quorum.