Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3134 and ask the clerk to report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I thank the distinguished Chair.

Mr. President, the underlying bill gives a 5-percent domestic manufacturing deduction to the manufacturing industry. Of course, that is woefully insufficient. My amendment would provide a full 9-percent domestic manufacturing deduction.

The underlying bill slowly phases in the domestic manufacturing provision over a 5-year period, but instantly it gets the full effect of the overseas industry, the outsourcing. They immediately get some tax breaks over the period of the bill covering some 39, almost 40 billion bucks.

Can you imagine that? Here is a bill entitled--this is the committee report--the Jump-Start Our Business Strength, JOBS, Act. It jump-starts the jobs in Shanghai and Guadalajara and not in Philadelphia, PA, I can tell you that right now.

What my amendment does is provide the right incentives. It eliminates the tax breaks for corporations that have moved American jobs offshore and gives those tax breaks to the employers of jobs in America today.

I wish to thank, first, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, of our Finance Committee and his outstanding staff. They have been very helpful in trying to make this amendment not only relevant but budget neutral. I am not sure about its budget neutrality, but I am told now we do have a relevant amendment. If we have to get into the arcane discussion with respect to budget neutrality, I will be glad to join it.

I want to get to the point. We are still in a post-World War II culture, what they call up here an environment or pedigree. What happened was, after World War II, we had our finest hour with the Marshall plan. We sent money overseas. We sent expertise overseas. We sent equipment overseas. In the cold war, capitalism defeated communism. It worked. All during that almost 50-year period since World War II, we all enjoyed it because we fudged when it came to trade. We treated fair trade more or less as foreign aid, but we knew what we were doing. We had to sacrifice a certain amount of our industry, our jobs, our economic strength to prevail in this cold war.

Now what has occurred is the competition has regeared, they have rebuilt, they have industrialized, and they have become outlandishly competitive. And here amidst a trade war, we hear those in the national Congress running around and saying: Woo, we might start a trade war; free trade, free trade, I am for free trade, when they know free trade is like dry water. There is no such thing. If you trade, you are trading something, you are

swapping an article with various countries, free trade, but we know that is not going to come to pass.

The example we set of a capitalistic free market and our endeavor in the last 50 years, the Japanese did not follow suit. They have the financing, they have the subsidies, they have the nontariff barriers, and we have yet to get into downtown Tokyo with American sales. Come on, quit kidding each other. It worked that way for Japan. Korea followed. And now China is following the same Japanese pattern of restricted and competitive trade, not free trade.

Today we are in real trouble. We are losing jobs like gangbusters overseas. We have lost 68,000 jobs in the little State of South Carolina in the last 3 years, over 3 million jobs nationally. I can tell you, 58,000 of those jobs are our textile jobs, and they are not going to be replaced. You can put all this statistical information from the Federal Reserve and Greenspan about how we are creating jobs, but they are not coming to South Carolina.

As Abraham Lincoln said some years ago: The dogmas of the quiet path are inadequate to the stormy present. As our case is new, we must think anew, we must act anew, we must disenthrall ourselves, and then working together we can save our Nation. That is the reason for this amendment.

One does not put up an amendment to this finance bill with hope. The chairman of the Finance Committee knows there are not going to be any amendments. But we might be able to disenthrall our colleagues because the country has to develop a competitive trade policy in order to subsist and survive.

I can point out survival in the very beginning of this Nation started with Alexander Hamilton. Of course, I will not read the book--Ron Chernow's ``Alexander Hamilton.'' They will not give me that much time, but I recommend to everyone this particular edition. You will find the mother country, England, prevented manufacture in the Colonies, later the United States of America. In fact, they arrested and jailed anyone with any manufacturing talent who would move from England to the Colonies.

We had a veritable struggle in the earliest days, and we had just barely 1 hour of freedom when the mother country said: Under this David Ricardo doctrine of comparative advantage, we will trade with you what you produce best and you trade back with us what we produce best.

As a result, Alexander Hamilton wrote his famous treatise, ``Report on Manufacturers.'' I will not read that and put it in the Record, but I will say in a phrase exactly what Hamilton told the Brits: Bug off. He told the Brits, we are not going to remain your colony, shipping you our timber, iron ore, rice, cotton, indigo, and natural resources, and importing the manufactured articles and remaining a banana republic; we are going to build up our own manufacturing.

It caused me to listen to our friend Akio Morita, the former head of Sony. Some 20 years ago in Chicago, while lecturing third world countries, he said you have to develop a strong manufacturing sector in order to become a nation state. Then he pointed to me and said: Senator, that world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.

It is economic strength that counts in this terrorism war. It is diplomacy. It is negotiation. It is not military strength. We have to disenthrall ourselves and realize when we are going around talking about we might start a trade war, it was Hamilton himself and the United States of America some 228 years ago that started the trade war.

The very first bill--well, Pat Moynihan used to correct me on that. He said the first was a resolution for the United States Seal. So let's say the second bill that passed this Congress in its history on July 4, 1789, was a tariff bill, protectionism, a 50-percent tariff on 60 different articles. We started a trade war.

When Abraham Lincoln was President, they were going to build a transcontinental railroad. They said, we are going to get the steel from England. President Lincoln said, we are going to build our own steel plants, and he put import restrictions on that British steel and we built the steel plants.

When Franklin Roosevelt was President in the darkest days of the Depression, we did not practice any comparative advantage. He put on the most successful initiative ever with import quotas and subsidies for America's agriculture. That farm crowd that is now heading up our Finance Committee gets $180 billion worth of all kinds of subsidies. Then they run around here and tell this poor little textile Senator, protectionism, protectionism, you are going to start a trade war.

We do not get a subsidy. We do not have those things the farmers have. I favor what the farmers have, I say in the same breath. I vote for it because I think it is a very successful program.

President Eisenhower, in the mid-1950s, put on oil import quotas. Yes, John F. Kennedy--I sat there with Andy Hatcher and we would grind out the mimeograph machine--and we got the seven-point Kennedy textile program of restrictions on textile imports in 1961.

Who else other than Ronald Reagan, the best of the best, he put import quotas on steel, machine tools, semiconductors, motorcycles. Last night, I was near Myrtle Beach and they told me there were 100,000 motorcyclists--I think I ran into 99,000 of them out on the highway-- but do my colleagues remember what old Ronnie Reagan did? He started a trade war of motorcycles. He put a 50-percent import tariff on motorcycles. Harley Davidson now has recovered its health and we have them all running up and down the beach at Myrtle Beach, SC. So do not come now and tell me about starting a trade war.

We have had that trade war and we know simply and clearly what happens. I want to read starting on page 20 of ``Theodore Rex'' by Edmund Morris, because this is so interesting. I will read what protectionism did at the turn of the century, this is under Teddy Roosevelt, when we did not have an income tax. For the first 100 and some years, we financed this great United States of America with protectionism. I am trying to get that through so this crowd will wake up and quit pulling off this charade of the multinationals, because that is who we are facing. We are facing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Conference Board, the United Federation of Independent Businesses. The newspapers make a majority of their money on retail advertising and grind out this free trade, free trade, do not let us start a trade war.

Well, here is what the trade war gave us:

This first year of the new century found her worth twenty-

five billion dollars more than her nearest rival, Great

Britain, with a gross national product more than twice that

of Germany and Russia. The United States was already so rich

in goods and services that she was more self-sustaining than

any industrial power in history. . . .

More than half of the world's cotton, corn, copper, and oil

flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one-third

of all steel, iron, silver, and gold.

Here we are having trouble manufacturing steel. We were exporting one-third of the world's steel.

Even if the United States were not so blessed with raw

materials, the excellence of her manufactured products

guaranteed her dominance of world markets. Current

advertisements in British magazines gave the impression that

the typical Englishman woke to the ring of an Ingersoll

alarm, shaved with a Gillette razor, combed his hair with

Vaseline tonic, buttoned his Arrow shirt, hurried downstairs

for Quaker Oats, California Figs and Maxwell House coffee,

commuted in a Westinghouse tram (body by Fisher), rose to his

office in an Otis elevator, and worked all day with his

Waterman pen under the efficient glare of Edison light bulbs.

``It only remains,'' one Fleet Street wag suggested, ``for

[us] to take American coal to Newcastle.'' Behind the joke

lay real concern: the United States was already supplying

beer to Germany, pottery to Bohemia, and oranges to Valencia.

As a result of this billowing surge in productivity, Wall

Street was awash with foreign capital. Carnegie calculated

that America could afford to buy the entire United Kingdom,

and settle Britain's national debt in the bargain. For the

first time in history, transatlantic money currents were

thrusting more powerfully westward than east. Even the Bank

of England had begun to borrow money on Wall Street. New York

City seemed destined to replace London as the world's

financial center.

Well, in the year 2004, we are broke. We have come from the greatest creditor nation to the greatest debtor nation. The Japanese are financing over $460 billion of my deficit. The Chinese are financing my debt--not me financing any other country like we started

with protectionism. The Chinese have over $200 billion of my deficit. We will end up this year in September, in a few short months, with a deficit that will approximate $700 billion.

We are spending around $2 billion a day more than we are taking in. Can you imagine that? In the early 1980s when I talked about budget matters, I spoke about how it took us 200 years of our history to get to $1 trillion in debt. The cost of the Revolution, the Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea War, Vietnam War--it took us 200 years and the cost of all the wars to reach a $1 trillion debt.

In the last 3\1/2\ years--because we don't want to pay for our war and want to give tax breaks instead--we have already piled up $2 trillion in debt; $2 trillion in the last 3\1/2\ years.

This crowd has to sober up. We have to get hold of ourselves. We have to disenthrall ourselves and we have to start competing. Remember, it is our standard of living. That is the most frustrating thing around here. Here we add on these requirements: the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closing notice, parental leave, safe working place, safe machinery, the old age act, the discrimination act, and this act and that act--all of that goes into the cost of production. It is not just the minimum wage; it is our high standard of living. Every Republican and every Democrat favors clean air and clean water. So we are not going back on our standard of living. So fundamentally we have to protect, and that is the fundamental role of Government.

I will never forget when we swore in President Ronald Reagan for his second term. It was inclement weather and we did it in the Rotunda. He raised his hand to preserve, protect, and defend. We came back and we were debating trade, and we said: Oh, we don't want to protect, we don't want to protect. The fundamental oath that we take as public servants is to protect. We have the Army to protect us from enemies without, the FBI to protect us from enemies within. We have Social Security to protect us from old age, Medicare to protect us from ill- health; clean air, clean water--antitrust laws to protect the freedom of the market. We can go right on down the list. Are we going to pass a wonderful high standard of living and then run around like ninnies hollering: Wait a minute, wait a minute, free trade, free trade. We don't want to start protectionism--they get that garbage from the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I talk as one having received all of their awards. In 1992, I was man of the year of the National Chamber of Commerce. By 1998 they were sending out leaflets against me. So I speak advisedly. That crowd is not any longer interested in Main Street America. They are interested in Main Street Beijing. That is where you make the money, and the country can go to hell as far as they are concerned. So it is our duty to protect the economy and open up the markets and everything else like that.

Don't tell us more about retrain, retrain, retrain. I continually hear that. Oh, we have to retrain. I went through another little town yesterday, Andrews, SC. It brings to mind Oneida. I brought that plant in. They make little T-shirts. They closed to go to Mexico. At the time of closure they had 487 employees. The average age was 47 years.

We have done it, Senator, your way. We have retrained them and we have 487 highly skilled computer operators. Are you going to hire the 47-year-old highly skilled computer operator or the 21-year-old highly skilled computer operator? You are not going to take on the retirement, the pension cost of the 47-year-old. You are not going to take on the health cost of the 47-year-old. You are going to get the 21-year-old. So don't tell me about retraining.

We have the most productive economy--that is what Alan Greenspan says. He is sobering up himself. He came down here with this administration saying we were paying down too much debt. ``We are paying down too much debt.'' He sanctioned all these tax cuts. Now he says debt and deficits matter, and he is worried about interest rates now and everything else of that kind, and paying bills.

It is time we speak out as much as we can, early on, so we will know exactly where we stand. Where we stand is that we have to reorganize-- begin to organize, I should say--our trade effort, not just the Department of Commerce, but a Department of Trade and Commerce. I have been serving for almost 38 years on what was originally the Committee of Foreign and Interstate Commerce because article I section 8 says that Congress--not the President, not the Supreme Court--but the Congress of the United States shall regulate foreign commerce.

But, instead, it is over in the hands of a deep six group known as the Finance Committee. What they do is they work out their little deals. You might get a stadium, you might get a courthouse, you might get any kind of visions of sugarplums dancing in their head.

Forget about trade. They put on fast track. After they make their deal, the vote is fixed. Then it comes to the floor of the most deliberative body that cannot, under fast track, deliberate. And we enjoy it. We have tied our hands with fast track because we don't want to take the responsibility. That is what the polls will tell you: Don't say you are for or against, just say you are concerned.

So we say we are concerned and we keep getting reelected and the country goes to hell in an economic hand pot. I can tell you right now we are in real trouble, and we have to disenthrall.

What happens is that we need to organize a Department of Trade and Commerce, take that special Trade Representative, put it under that Secretary, do away with the International Trade Commission, which is a fix. You can find the damage done by the International Trade Administration over in Commerce. Then you go over to the Commission and they find out--oh, there is never any injury because you have growth. The GNP now is 3 or 4 percent, so there is no injury. So we keep sending the jobs out of the country like gangbusters, and we ought to do away with that particular fix of the Finance Committee. Then come in and get an Attorney General--an assistant, let's say, to enforce the trade laws.

Many a trade lawyer in this city has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and found out that, well, politically it is set aside. It was that way in the Zenith case, when they were gathered around the Cabinet table and President Reagan walked in and he said: I have to take care of Nakasone. We are going to have to reverse that decision, after 3 years and millions of dollars of legal costs.

So we ought to put in, like we have for antitrust, like we have for equal employment--we have to put in an Assistant Attorney General to enforce those laws, get the Customs agents, and finally when we get right down to it, do like the others do, play their game. If you are going to sell it here, you have to make it here. Isn't that wonderful? That is exactly what China really controls.

They said, if you want to sell it here you have to make it here. I haven't gotten them that far along, I am just trying to flex their minds so we will get away from this trade war and protectionism nonsense, so we can put in a competitive trade policy and save our industrial backbone.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining? My distinguished colleague from Florida, Mr. Bob Graham, wants to be heard.

Let me yield at this time to the proponents and the distinguished leadership of our Finance Committee. I retain the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. President, I yield whatever time I have to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Good.

Yes.

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

Mr. President, I take it we will be voting on a resolution with respect to the Saddam prison.

It strikes me, what I have just heard in the last few minutes, as a typical copout from responsibility. We hide the deficit. We do not pay the costs of the war. We hide behind all these other things. Now all we have to do is remove the building, and if they cannot be aware of it, they will not care.

This thing happened in January. What we have on foot is the exact ``torture-gate,'' I guess you would call it. From January to May, we have not heard anything about it. This Senator has not heard anything about it. Now we have all of these ``whereas'' clauses, and this is what Saddam did, and it did not bother us. We did not put in a resolution about it. In fact, we went there and spent good money to clean it up and we put a prison there.

Maybe after we take some responsibility, then maybe this kind of resolution would be in order. The first act and the first reaction officially of the Senate is going to be, let's tear down the building. The building is not at fault. It is the people in the building who are at fault.

I will not be able to vote for this nonsense. I have never seen a crowd that absolutely will not accept responsibility for the war, for the costs of the war, the cost of government, and now the responsibility here. Their first reaction is a lot of ``whereas'' clauses about Saddam and nothing about us, other than that is not our way of life, and everything else of that kind. Let's find out that is not our way of life by fixing some responsibility in this Government. Once that is done, bring on the ``whereas'' clauses about Saddam's prison.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this year many of our colleagues are seeking the NASCAR vote, but I think it would be wise if each member in this body, instead, sought out the NASCAR heart.

My neighbors in South Carolina are Pattie and Kyle Petty. In May 2000, the Pettys faced a terrible tragedy, as their young son, Adam, the next great racing hope in the family, died during a practice session. Pattie and Kyle didn't retreat after that, but have worked ever since to bring Adam's dream of a camp for chronically ill children to reality. Many NASCAR drivers, owners, sponsors, and fans have contributed, and the Victory Junction Gang Camp will open its doors in June.

I bring to the attention of my colleagues the following article from the April 23 USA Today, outlining the good work of the Petty family and I ask that it be printed in the Record.

The article follows:

[From USA TODAY, Apr. 23, 2004]

Legendary Racing Family Hopes To Turn Corner

kyle petty helps make his son's dream a reality

(By Chris Jenkins)

As a race car driver, Kyle Petty can't hope to match the

success of his father and grandfather. As an executive, he

can't hope to compete with NASCAR's mega-teams that have

millions more to spend on the best cars, drivers and

mechanics. As a father, he can't hope to put his son's death

in a racing accident nearly four years ago completely behind

him.

But Petty does hope, and he seems to radiate hope to those

around him through his sincere nature and gentle, quick wit.

Other drivers might be better at turning left on the

racetrack. They don't have his gift for turning life's

negatives into positives.

``No matter how bad your day is, when you see Kyle, your

day's better,'' driver Tony Stewart says. ``He tells you a

silly joke that makes you laugh or something that makes you

feel better.''

Petty, 43, gets angry--furious, actually--when he and his

cars don't measure up. And he recently woke up crying in the

middle of the night, missing his son, Adam.

But in the right-hand column of Petty's emotional ledger is

the camaraderie he feels with others in the NASCAR community,

optimism that his family's team eventually will return to

victory lane and, above all, the completion of Adam's dream:

a $20 million-plus retreat for chronically ill children.

``I've always been incredibly optimistic that as bad as it

is, it's got to get better,'' Petty says.

It would be easy to dwell on what might have been. Had Adam

Petty lived, many in NASCAR believe his electric talent and

sponsor-friendly personality would have driven the Petty

Enterprises team back to the prominence it once enjoyed.

Petty doesn't allow such thoughts: ``If you do, you'll just

go crazy.''

Kyle's father, seven-time NASCAR champion Richard Petty,

66, says it took years for Kyle's upbeat personality to

resurface. ``It took him a long time to get over it,''

Richard says, pausing to reconsider his use of the phrase

``over it.''

``Not to get over it. To get it beside of him instead of in

front of him.''

Says Stewart: ``I think when you see what Kyle's been

through as a person, a lot of people at that point would kind

of retreat and kind of put themselves in their own little

hole and shut themselves out from the rest of the world.

``With Kyle and (wife) Pattie, it's just the opposite. He's

such a positive person that you can't help gravitate toward

people like him and you want to be surrounded by people like

him.''

``Camp'' a misnomer

A tour of the Victory Junction Gang Camp, a retreat in

rural Randleman, N.C., for chronically ill children, revealed

two minor flaws.

The first is in its name: A ``camp'' has shoddy log cabins,

leaky canoes and a slimy pond. This place feels more like a

trendy suburban subdivision. There are new buildings--a

theater, a gym, a pool and more--trimmed in bright colors and

stainless steel, resort-quality guest cottages and medical

facilities where volunteer doctors will care for campers'

special needs.

The second flaw, pointed out by Kyle and Pattie Petty, is a

bent pedestrian bridge girder that was rammed by an errant

delivery truck. It's March, three months before the camp is

to open. This setback doesn't seem to be stressful. Instead,

the Pettys laugh, reminded of the time Adam, at 15,

accidentally mangled the family van by running into an

overhang at his grandfather's house.

Fond stories about Adam, the only one of the Pettys' three

children who seriously pursued a driving career, still waft

through the garage. Once he was spotted carrying a briefcase

around the infield, an accessory not often associated with

drivers. Bystanders couldn't let that oddity pass without

comment, so they asked him what he was carrying. Grinning, he

opened the briefcase to reveal a hairbrush and some gum.

For Kyle, almost anything can trigger memories. ``The way

the sun shines, the way you see a car on the racetrack,'' he

says. ``I'll hear somebody holler, say a name and turn around

expecting to see Adam standing there. And it just tweaks you

just right. And it hurts you. And it just breaks your heart.

``And I'm not the only person in this boat, believe me.

There's plenty of other families out all over this country

who have lost kids. I'm sure they all feel the same way.''

Adam died in May 2000 during a practice session at New

Hampshire International Speedway. NASCAR officials determined

that he died of a neck injury, the same type that would kill

Dale Earnhardt nine months later. Drivers now are required to

wear safety collars that help prevent neck injuries, and the

wall Adam hit is covered with an impact-absorbing barrier

system.

Kyle Petty doesn't blame NASCAR. He knows it might sound

odd to outsiders, but being around racers offers ``a lot of

comfort.''

The camp embraces racing as its theme. Used race cars will

be suspended from the cafeteria ceiling. An obstacle course

is built from tires. One building looks like a giant race

car--Adam's car. ``Racing is all Adam knew,'' Petty says.

Often when something is done in someone's memory, it is

said he or she would have wanted it this way. In Adam's case,

this is literally true: After helping his sponsor, Sprint,

promote a product that allowed kids in different hospitals to

communicate, Adam became determined to do something else for

those kids--even if, as his grandfather says, that meant

offering to sign over the rights to his winnings for the next

20 years to a loan officer if he'd lend Adam the money to

build a camp. But the project never got rolling until after

his death.

``Most 19-year-old kids (are) looking out for themselves,''

Richard says. ``And he was, don't get me wrong. But he had

feelings for other kids, too. So that just inspired us that

much more, that it was his idea originally. We're going to do

it come heck or high water.''

NASCAR and many of its drivers, team owners and sponsors

have chipped in for the camp, which will welcome its first

group in June; Stewart has pledged to raise at least $1

million. Fans have donated money and time. Nursing home

groups have sent box loads of handmade teddy bears and

quilts, gifts to campers.

The project is personal to rookie driver Brian Vickers, who

befriended Adam and the other Petty children, brother Austin,

22, and sister Montgomery, 18. All four grew up attending the

same home-schooling classes from a tutor. Vickers isn't

comfortable talking about Adam and doesn't mention the

significant donation he's quietly making to the camp.

Asked if Adam was talented enough to become a star, Vickers

looks at the floor and says, ``Yeah.''

Team loses ground

Most of today's big-time racing teams have moved into

gleaming buildings designed to attract tourists and impress

sponsors in suburban Charlotte. Then there's Petty

Enterprises' humble jumble of white shacks in Randleman, a

town short on stoplights and long on religious radio

programming.

Founded in 1949 by Kyle's grandfather, NASCAR pioneer Lee

Petty, then made famous by Richard, the team has won 268

races and 10 NASCAR championships. Most of that success came

before the NASCAR boom of the 1990s. When corporate America

began waking up to the popularity of NASCAR in the late

1980s, Richard was past his prime, though he'd drive until

1992.

Other teams were winning races, so they landed big

sponsors. Having more money allowed those teams to develop

technology to make their cars faster.

The Pettys fell behind; they've won three races since 1984,

none since '99. Adam was supposed to change that. When he

died, the promise of a young driver who could rally

crewmembers and attract sponsorships died with him. ``We had

a lot of stuff lined up around how we were going to do his

career and stuff like that,'' Richard says. ``So when the

accident happened, everything just went into limbo. For six

months or a year there, we just basically survived.''

Today the team, which fields cars for Kyle and journeyman

Jeff Green, 41, has funding from Georgia-Pacific and General

Mills, plus associate sponsors. It's significant money (exact

amounts are not disclosed), but nowhere near what marquee

teams command.

But the team's problems might not all be financial. Years

ago it was common for drivers to run teams. As the business

of racing became more complex, other teams added layers of

management. Today Petty is the only driver with a major team

who has extensive executive responsibilities.

``Definitely, he tries to handle way, way too much,'' says

Robbie Loomis, who worked for the Pettys before becoming Jeff

Gordon's crew chief in 2001. ``He's good at about everything,

but when you get stretched so thin and get pulled in so many

directions, it's hard to tell what direction to go in.''

Petty says he enjoys being busy but concedes that the

return of Dale Inman, the crew chief for Richard Petty's

championship teams, is making his job easier. Although Inman

is 67 and can't offer much in the way of technical advice,

Petty says Inman's presence helps crewmembers believe the

team can win. Petty compares it to Joe Gibbs returning to

coach the NFL's Washington Redskins.

Although Petty says this isn't his last season as a driver,

Loomis says Petty's retirement could be the first major step

toward a team resurgence. When Petty stops driving and

focuses on running the team, Loomis says, ``You're going to

see a whole new Petty Enterprises.''

The team is improving slowly; Petty's recent 12th-place

finish at Las Vegas Motor Speedway was cause for mild

celebration. The lack of research-and-development money

continues to show, as Petty and Green finish in the bottom

half of the field most of the time.

Though nice guys, as the saying goes, might finish last,

that doesn't mean they have to like it; a disappointing race

can transform Petty from friendly to fierce. But his

outbursts aren't without perspective and don't last long.

``I can deal with how we run a lot better, sometimes,

because of Adam,'' Petty says. ``Because nothing is as bad as

Adam, no matter what. I can go to the racetrack, run dead

last. I can go to the racetrack, not make the race. That's

still not the worst day.''

Mr. President, this week the citizens of Nebraska lost a legend with the passing of Governor Frank Morrison, and I rise to recognize my plain-spoken friend of 45 years.

When I was Governor of South Carolina, Frank became Governor of Nebraska, and I have admired him ever since. We spoke earlier this spring, and his mind was as sharp at age 98, as it was at age 58.

When I think of Frank I think of a man who knew how to get results. He was a progressive Governor, but also a fiscally conservative one. He implemented many changes, insofar as creating an educational television network and a statewide employee retirement system that modernized state government.

We will miss him, as we miss his wife Maxine, who just passed away last

month. My wife, Peatsy, joins me in extending our deepest sympathy to their family.

Mr. President, John Palms, the former president of the University of South Carolina, will be honored this week with Mepkin Abbey's newly established Wisdom Award.

All of us in the Senate would be a little wiser ourselves to read the following article from the April 10 Charleston Post and Courier, on Dr. Palms. He is an inspiration to all that the American dream is alive and well. I ask that the article be printed in the Record.

The article follows.

[From the Charleston Post and Courier, Apr. 10, 2004]

John Palms--Nuclear Physicist Leads the Way in Science, Education,

Religion and the World Stage

(By Judy Watts)

``Learning humanizes character and does not permit it to be

cruel'' is the University of South Carolina motto.

The words also epitomize John Palms' philosophy, not only

as the former USC president, but as a physicist and a human

being.

Although his formal training is in nuclear physics, his

life events have given him an educated perspective on

physics' ambiguous nature, both in the weapons he designed

and in the research, which had medical applications. As

president of two universities, he fulfilled his destiny as an

educator who believed in building not only well-educated

people, but also people of character.

On April 24, Palms will be presented with Mepkin Abbey's

newly established Wisdom Award, given for a lifetime of

achievement based on the highest human aspirations. Since his

years as a cadet at The Citadel, Mepkin Abbey has been a

personal touch-stone, a place where he has been able to focus

and center his life.

John Palms has come a long way from the little dutch boy

who fled a Hitler-terrorized Europe with his family.

Mr. President, less than 1 year ago, we wrapped up work on the port security bill that was signed into law as the Maritime Security Act of 2002, MTSA. That act mandated and outlined changes that are needed to shore up security in our ports, and established for the first time a system to coordinate, plan and implement port security at U.S. seaports. While this was landmark legislation, much still needs to be done with respect to the implementation of the requirements mandated by this law.

I am very dissatisfied with the current Administration's disinterest in paying for port security, and would point out that we are approaching a crisis, as Federal mandates are being rolled out for security without Federal support. I have tried over and over to focus the attention of the Administration on this crucial need and pushed to no avail in the Senate to get the resources necessary to address this problem. But to date, I have gotten little support. In addition to appropriating much needed funds for port security, it has become apparent that keeping up with security needs at our ports is an ever evolving task, and that we may have to refocus our efforts and push harder to ensure that we coordinate our policies and maximize the limited resources that we have in this area.

Today, in order to keep up with these needs, I am introducing the ``Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004'', along with Senator McCain, and Senator Breaux. I am pleased to have worked on this with Senator McCain, the Chairman of our Committee, as I often remark, while he has no coastline, he has worked with those of us who do have ports to work on these crucial port security issues. I am also pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Breaux, for he has truly been one of the leading advocates of the importance of maritime shipping and the merchant marine in the U.S. Senate. He has done invaluable work for us on the Commerce Committee, and is a true expert in the field. He will be sorely missed for his expertise on all maritime issues, although I am sure, that in the future, he will still be the Captain of some small boat, yacht, or maybe even a ship.

Even though the Coast Guard, Customs and other agencies charged with the implementation of these measures have aggressively taken initial steps necessary to set up our future structure for seaport security there is still much to do, and effective action needs to occur to help coordinate and crystallize security policies and objectives. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004 would attempt to mandate a coordinated Federal approach to several areas of concern in port security. It would also attempt to set performance standards for certain areas in port security and add a few enhancements to last year's legislation. Most importantly the bill would require a user fee to be established to help pay for the port security mandates.

Specifically, this bill would impose in rem liability to secure payment of penalties and fines under the Act and to help ensure compliance with the security requirements imposed by the MTSA. The bill would also include provisions to increase security in waterside cargo areas, and ensure that cargo contents of imported marine cargo containers would be required to be cleared within 5 days of entering a U.S. port, or alternatively removed after 5 days without being cleared, to a regulated warehouse where it would be opened and reviewed to verify its contents. This would in no way change any claim to possession of the goods. Importantly, the bill would require DHS to evaluate the policies and practices of sealing empty containers. According to the Federal Maritime Commission, over 4 million containers were imported into the United States empty. At a recent hearing, a representative from the ILWU longshoremen's union pointed out that treatment of empties and the sealing practices of these containers varied from locale to locale. This bill would require an analysis of current practices at U.S. ports in order to determine what steps need to occur in order to make sure that the transport of empty containers does not present a threat of terrorism, and whether a Federal policy is justified in this area.

The bill would require the Administration to produce a coordinated plan for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating maritime intelligence information collected by Federal agencies on ships, cargo, crew members and passengers. This intelligence is used to determine which ships, cargo, or crew warrant further inspection. This section of the bill requires further development of a maritime intelligence system to collect and analyze information concerning the crew, passengers and cargoes carried on vessels operating in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. This mandate essentially restates existing law since it appears that the agencies have actually grown further apart since the passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. The provision in this bill would require a plan on how the Administration will coordinate collection and analysis of maritime information, and how agency personnel might be co-located to maximize resources and coordinate analysis. This plan must also indicate when long range vessel tracking will be integrated into this intelligence information. Additionally, the plan would require the government to analyze private sector resources to evaluate how they could be used to help monitor and differentiate legitimate moves of trade from those actions and players that are more suppositious. The Federal Government does not have a lot of experience monitoring commercial maritime activity, and I believe they will have to employ private sector expertise to assist in this endeavor.

The report shall also consider the abilities of the Department of Navy to collect and analyze commercial maritime information. The U.S. Navy probably has the most resources dedicated to the evaluation of commercial shipping activities, but are precluded from sharing this information. In light of our need for better information on commercial shipping, this policy has to be reevaluated. A maritime intelligence system needs to be set up to work together so that Federal agencies, State, local and the private sector can coordinate their law enforcement activities. Maritime intelligence on commercial ocean shipping is currently gathered by the Coast Guard, Customs, INS, and other agencies such as the Federal Maritime Commission under separate systems. Only the Coast Guard and the Navy currently work together. We lag far behind in this area, and each agency is operating independent of others. We are not getting the full picture of what is happening out there. It is crucial that we have the best information available so that we can target our relatively limited resources with maximum efficiency. Further, the information has to be disseminated in a fashion to maximize its utility, while still protecting that information which needs to be kept confidential. Collection and analysis of commercial maritime information is a key element of our port security that needs more focus and has to be addressed if we are to adequately protect our Nation.

Importantly, the bill will require the Administration to come up with cargo security plans to evaluate targeting systems to determine whether they are effective in deterring and protecting against potential acts of terrorism from cargo. In the event that targeting is inadequate protection, DHS would be required to increase the amount of cargo being non-intrusively inspected or x-rayed by two over the next year. The bill would also require the consolidation of intermodal cargo security programs that have the same security goals while establishing criteria and

performance goals for these security programs, which are currently operating completely independent of each other, and require certain other cargo security program enhancements. Voluntary cargo security programs are not the answer to the important problem of securing our Nation from terrorist attacks. Firm standards and goals must be in place to ensure that items that we know we don't want in marine containers are not actually in marine containers. The legislation will also require a report on the amount of actual inspections that are being done at foreign seaports.

While the Container Security Initiative was rolled out with great fanfare to work with foreign ports to inspect cargo before they get to U.S. ports, the question remains whether we are actually getting much bang for the buck. The fundamental question that needs to be addressed is whether foreign nations have been willing to use their security screening equipment for our benefit, and to what degree have they been willing to screen cargo for the benefit of our Nation. The legislation will require a report to determine whether this program needs adjustment, or is a cost-effective measure to ensure safe cargo movements into the U.S., and to update us on the progress in the installation of a system of radiation detection at U.S. ports.

Additionally, this legislation will redirect our efforts to help ensure that we can verify that security is in place to prevent an act of terrorism, and not place us in a position of having to rely on documentation and the attestations or documentation of third parties in order to determine whether we need to take actions to protect the public. The Administration has not even started to implement the certification program required to certify ``secure systems of transportation,'' 46 U.S.C. 70116, and they must get going on this vital initiative. Otherwise, it would only take one good liar to breach our system of defense. Although I understand we cannot inspect every piece of cargo, we have a credible system in place to actively increase cargo inspections, and implement a system that would ultimately allow us to reopen U.S. ports to commerce, in the event of an attack.

Additionally, the bill also would require a report from the Coast Guard on the benefits of utilizing joint operational centers at United States seaports to implement area security plans. This report should incorporate lessons learned from the three centers that have already been established, such as ``Operation SeaHawk'' in Charleston, SC, and consider which security programs could be effectively fused into these joint operational centers. The Commandant of the Coast Guard would be required by this bill to report on the effectiveness of these centers for port security and determine if it would be beneficial and cost effective to establish centers in additional areas that pose a significant security risk, and to utilize them to implement area security plans.

The bill will also make sure that port security grants are reviewed and approved, as was mandated under the terms of the MTSA, and all grants are subject to the review of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, the regional Maritime Administration representative, and other Transportation Security Administration security officials as well as other DHS security experts, before the grants are approved. This grant program is not open-ended, it is intended to help the private sector and State and municipal governments achieve compliance with Federally approved facility plans and area maritime security plans, and the changes to the statute will ensure that the grant program operates the way we intended it to operate.

The bill also requires the Maritime Administration and the State Department to evaluate existing foreign assistance programs to determine whether the existing aid programs can be utilized to help foreign nations achieve compliance with the international standard set for port security. The MTSA requires the Coast Guard to set up a mechanism to review the practices of foreign ports to ensure that they have implemented adequate security measures, and ultimately, they can take steps that would result in the closure of commerce from ports in non-compliance with international security standards. It is in the best interests of everyone potentially impacted by such a policy implication, if we review our foreign aid programs to determine whether aid can be used to implement the necessary security measures.

The bill also requires the Maritime Administration to work with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, and other DHS port security agencies such as TSA, Coast Guard and Customs to determine how to supplement their training programs to include a greater familiarization with commercial maritime practices. Port security law enforcement is much different in the aftermath of September 11, and officials involved in regulation and policing shipping will now have to approach it from a different perspective, and to be able to identify anomalies and irregularities, in order to best focus our limited police resources over an immense volume of trade. It is my understanding that the Maritime Administration has been utilizing resources at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and working with FLETC to formalize port security training. I think that this change will help our Federal agencies bolster their existing training programs, and achieve a greater understanding of potential security issues that could arise, and will be a healthy addition to work already done by the Maritime Administration and FLETC.

The bill rewrites the DHS mandate to conduct research and development, and would require the Science Directorate within DHS to be more accountable to Congress for those actions they are taking to develop the types of technology necessary to address security at our seaports. Importantly, the bill also requires the Coast Guard to evaluate the security risks and policies very carefully of nuclear facilities on or adjacent to navigable waterways to ensure that we have security policies in place to prevent acts of terrorism from occurring from on or under navigable waterways. Most nuclear facilities are on or adjacent to navigable waterways, and I want the Coast Guard to exercise the highest degree of security in their treatment of these facilities and the threat posed as a result of maritime commerce or the proximity to navigable waterways.

Most importantly, this bill attempts to address the fundamental issue that will face the nation as we implement the MTSA--will sufficient funding be in place to assure that our ports and agencies will robustly pursue security, or we will have to rely on sham security programs, or efforts severely restricted by funding that result in de minimus or desultory security efforts. When the Senate and House conferenced on the port security bill in the fall of 2002, the Senate conferees insisted on establishing direct funding for port security programs through a user fee, identical to the airline security fee, which would help defray the significant costs for the new port security mandates. The Administration declined to dedicate any resources for port security, and they declined to support the Senate's user fee. Unable to reach agreement with the House conferees and the Administration, I agreed to authorize just the necessary funds, but the President was required by law to report to Congress within 6 months on a funding proposal to assist States and their ports in complying with security mandates for Federal security plans. That report has never been prepared and is 9 months overdue.

When the President's budget for FY 2004 came out, after the U.S. Coast Guard had estimated that it would take $7.4 billion of funding in order to comply with the port security requirements, there was no funding for port authority compliance in that year's budget resolution. I offered an amendment to the FY 2004 Budget Resolution which was unanimously accepted to add $1 billion to help defray the first year costs of port security--ultimately it was dropped from Conference. Two weeks later, the President was presented with a direct opportunity to fund port security programs: Congressional consideration of his emergency supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the war in Iraq and bolster homeland security. Again, the Administration funding request included no funding for port authorities to help them comply with the Federal mandate, so I offered an amendment to add $1 billion to the supplemental specifically to help ports meet the new security mandates. Despite unanimous approval in

the Senate 3 weeks earlier, the amendment was opposed by the Administration and defeated on the Senate floor on a straight party line vote.

Last year, I made another effort to address the port security funding inadequacies during consideration of the FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Again, the Administration proposed no funding for port security grants in their 2004 request, so I offered an amendment to the bill to direct $300 million specifically to port security grants without increasing the overall cost of the bill. The Administration opposed the funding increase, and the amendment was defeated largely along party lines with only three Republicans supporting the amendment.

Until this year's budget the President has not requested one dime specifically for port security. He has opposed efforts to mandate the funds be raised from the users of the system, and this year's budget request is for only $46 million. Despite opposition from the White House, Congress has directed appropriations that have resulted in grants of $450 million to ports to help ensure compliance with the Federal security mandates, and so I know that this issue is an area of major concern. Ultimately, the funding issues must be addressed, and this bill proposes a user fee to pay for the costs of compliance of port security. I had considered the possibility of authorizing the Administration to either generate funds for port security via a user fee, or alternatively mandate that funds be directly transferred from funds collected by Customs duties, but because of jurisdictional issues determined not to do so. The maritime industry supports this approach, and I am not opposed to this approach, but want only to ensure, that one way or another, we have the necessary funding in place to set up the system of port security that this nation deserves. Simply put, there is just too much at stake to hope that security emerges.

This bill seeks to continue the work to correct the security and terrorism prevention needs at our maritime borders. There is much to be done and there is a continued need for government and industry cooperation. This bill works on some of that need, yet the major need is funding for port security, which I hope that we will be able to address in the Senate very soon.

I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, less than 1 year ago, we wrapped up work on the port security bill that was signed into law as the Maritime Security Act of 2002, MTSA. That act mandated and outlined changes that are needed to shore up security in our ports, and established for the first time a system to coordinate, plan and implement port security at U.S. seaports. While this was landmark legislation, much still needs to be done with respect to the implementation of the requirements mandated by this law.

I am very dissatisfied with the current Administration's disinterest in paying for port security, and would point out that we are approaching a crisis, as Federal mandates are being rolled out for security without Federal support. I have tried over and over to focus the attention of the Administration on this crucial need and pushed to no avail in the Senate to get the resources necessary to address this problem. But to date, I have gotten little support. In addition to appropriating much needed funds for port security, it has become apparent that keeping up with security needs at our ports is an ever evolving task, and that we may have to refocus our efforts and push harder to ensure that we coordinate our policies and maximize the limited resources that we have in this area.

Today, in order to keep up with these needs, I am introducing the ``Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004'', along with Senator McCain, and Senator Breaux. I am pleased to have worked on this with Senator McCain, the Chairman of our Committee, as I often remark, while he has no coastline, he has worked with those of us who do have ports to work on these crucial port security issues. I am also pleased to introduce this legislation with Senator Breaux, for he has truly been one of the leading advocates of the importance of maritime shipping and the merchant marine in the U.S. Senate. He has done invaluable work for us on the Commerce Committee, and is a true expert in the field. He will be sorely missed for his expertise on all maritime issues, although I am sure, that in the future, he will still be the Captain of some small boat, yacht, or maybe even a ship.

Even though the Coast Guard, Customs and other agencies charged with the implementation of these measures have aggressively taken initial steps necessary to set up our future structure for seaport security there is still much to do, and effective action needs to occur to help coordinate and crystallize security policies and objectives. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004 would attempt to mandate a coordinated Federal approach to several areas of concern in port security. It would also attempt to set performance standards for certain areas in port security and add a few enhancements to last year's legislation. Most importantly the bill would require a user fee to be established to help pay for the port security mandates.

Specifically, this bill would impose in rem liability to secure payment of penalties and fines under the Act and to help ensure compliance with the security requirements imposed by the MTSA. The bill would also include provisions to increase security in waterside cargo areas, and ensure that cargo contents of imported marine cargo containers would be required to be cleared within 5 days of entering a U.S. port, or alternatively removed after 5 days without being cleared, to a regulated warehouse where it would be opened and reviewed to verify its contents. This would in no way change any claim to possession of the goods. Importantly, the bill would require DHS to evaluate the policies and practices of sealing empty containers. According to the Federal Maritime Commission, over 4 million containers were imported into the United States empty. At a recent hearing, a representative from the ILWU longshoremen's union pointed out that treatment of empties and the sealing practices of these containers varied from locale to locale. This bill would require an analysis of current practices at U.S. ports in order to determine what steps need to occur in order to make sure that the transport of empty containers does not present a threat of terrorism, and whether a Federal policy is justified in this area.

The bill would require the Administration to produce a coordinated plan for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating maritime intelligence information collected by Federal agencies on ships, cargo, crew members and passengers. This intelligence is used to determine which ships, cargo, or crew warrant further inspection. This section of the bill requires further development of a maritime intelligence system to collect and analyze information concerning the crew, passengers and cargoes carried on vessels operating in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. This mandate essentially restates existing law since it appears that the agencies have actually grown further apart since the passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. The provision in this bill would require a plan on how the Administration will coordinate collection and analysis of maritime information, and how agency personnel might be co-located to maximize resources and coordinate analysis. This plan must also indicate when long range vessel tracking will be integrated into this intelligence information. Additionally, the plan would require the government to analyze private sector resources to evaluate how they could be used to help monitor and differentiate legitimate moves of trade from those actions and players that are more suppositious. The Federal Government does not have a lot of experience monitoring commercial maritime activity, and I believe they will have to employ private sector expertise to assist in this endeavor.

The report shall also consider the abilities of the Department of Navy to collect and analyze commercial maritime information. The U.S. Navy probably has the most resources dedicated to the evaluation of commercial shipping activities, but are precluded from sharing this information. In light of our need for better information on commercial shipping, this policy has to be reevaluated. A maritime intelligence system needs to be set up to work together so that Federal agencies, State, local and the private sector can coordinate their law enforcement activities. Maritime intelligence on commercial ocean shipping is currently gathered by the Coast Guard, Customs, INS, and other agencies such as the Federal Maritime Commission under separate systems. Only the Coast Guard and the Navy currently work together. We lag far behind in this area, and each agency is operating independent of others. We are not getting the full picture of what is happening out there. It is crucial that we have the best information available so that we can target our relatively limited resources with maximum efficiency. Further, the information has to be disseminated in a fashion to maximize its utility, while still protecting that information which needs to be kept confidential. Collection and analysis of commercial maritime information is a key element of our port security that needs more focus and has to be addressed if we are to adequately protect our Nation.

Importantly, the bill will require the Administration to come up with cargo security plans to evaluate targeting systems to determine whether they are effective in deterring and protecting against potential acts of terrorism from cargo. In the event that targeting is inadequate protection, DHS would be required to increase the amount of cargo being non-intrusively inspected or x-rayed by two over the next year. The bill would also require the consolidation of intermodal cargo security programs that have the same security goals while establishing criteria and

performance goals for these security programs, which are currently operating completely independent of each other, and require certain other cargo security program enhancements. Voluntary cargo security programs are not the answer to the important problem of securing our Nation from terrorist attacks. Firm standards and goals must be in place to ensure that items that we know we don't want in marine containers are not actually in marine containers. The legislation will also require a report on the amount of actual inspections that are being done at foreign seaports.

While the Container Security Initiative was rolled out with great fanfare to work with foreign ports to inspect cargo before they get to U.S. ports, the question remains whether we are actually getting much bang for the buck. The fundamental question that needs to be addressed is whether foreign nations have been willing to use their security screening equipment for our benefit, and to what degree have they been willing to screen cargo for the benefit of our Nation. The legislation will require a report to determine whether this program needs adjustment, or is a cost-effective measure to ensure safe cargo movements into the U.S., and to update us on the progress in the installation of a system of radiation detection at U.S. ports.

Additionally, this legislation will redirect our efforts to help ensure that we can verify that security is in place to prevent an act of terrorism, and not place us in a position of having to rely on documentation and the attestations or documentation of third parties in order to determine whether we need to take actions to protect the public. The Administration has not even started to implement the certification program required to certify ``secure systems of transportation,'' 46 U.S.C. 70116, and they must get going on this vital initiative. Otherwise, it would only take one good liar to breach our system of defense. Although I understand we cannot inspect every piece of cargo, we have a credible system in place to actively increase cargo inspections, and implement a system that would ultimately allow us to reopen U.S. ports to commerce, in the event of an attack.

Additionally, the bill also would require a report from the Coast Guard on the benefits of utilizing joint operational centers at United States seaports to implement area security plans. This report should incorporate lessons learned from the three centers that have already been established, such as ``Operation SeaHawk'' in Charleston, SC, and consider which security programs could be effectively fused into these joint operational centers. The Commandant of the Coast Guard would be required by this bill to report on the effectiveness of these centers for port security and determine if it would be beneficial and cost effective to establish centers in additional areas that pose a significant security risk, and to utilize them to implement area security plans.

The bill will also make sure that port security grants are reviewed and approved, as was mandated under the terms of the MTSA, and all grants are subject to the review of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, the regional Maritime Administration representative, and other Transportation Security Administration security officials as well as other DHS security experts, before the grants are approved. This grant program is not open-ended, it is intended to help the private sector and State and municipal governments achieve compliance with Federally approved facility plans and area maritime security plans, and the changes to the statute will ensure that the grant program operates the way we intended it to operate.

The bill also requires the Maritime Administration and the State Department to evaluate existing foreign assistance programs to determine whether the existing aid programs can be utilized to help foreign nations achieve compliance with the international standard set for port security. The MTSA requires the Coast Guard to set up a mechanism to review the practices of foreign ports to ensure that they have implemented adequate security measures, and ultimately, they can take steps that would result in the closure of commerce from ports in non-compliance with international security standards. It is in the best interests of everyone potentially impacted by such a policy implication, if we review our foreign aid programs to determine whether aid can be used to implement the necessary security measures.

The bill also requires the Maritime Administration to work with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC, and other DHS port security agencies such as TSA, Coast Guard and Customs to determine how to supplement their training programs to include a greater familiarization with commercial maritime practices. Port security law enforcement is much different in the aftermath of September 11, and officials involved in regulation and policing shipping will now have to approach it from a different perspective, and to be able to identify anomalies and irregularities, in order to best focus our limited police resources over an immense volume of trade. It is my understanding that the Maritime Administration has been utilizing resources at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and working with FLETC to formalize port security training. I think that this change will help our Federal agencies bolster their existing training programs, and achieve a greater understanding of potential security issues that could arise, and will be a healthy addition to work already done by the Maritime Administration and FLETC.

The bill rewrites the DHS mandate to conduct research and development, and would require the Science Directorate within DHS to be more accountable to Congress for those actions they are taking to develop the types of technology necessary to address security at our seaports. Importantly, the bill also requires the Coast Guard to evaluate the security risks and policies very carefully of nuclear facilities on or adjacent to navigable waterways to ensure that we have security policies in place to prevent acts of terrorism from occurring from on or under navigable waterways. Most nuclear facilities are on or adjacent to navigable waterways, and I want the Coast Guard to exercise the highest degree of security in their treatment of these facilities and the threat posed as a result of maritime commerce or the proximity to navigable waterways.

Most importantly, this bill attempts to address the fundamental issue that will face the nation as we implement the MTSA--will sufficient funding be in place to assure that our ports and agencies will robustly pursue security, or we will have to rely on sham security programs, or efforts severely restricted by funding that result in de minimus or desultory security efforts. When the Senate and House conferenced on the port security bill in the fall of 2002, the Senate conferees insisted on establishing direct funding for port security programs through a user fee, identical to the airline security fee, which would help defray the significant costs for the new port security mandates. The Administration declined to dedicate any resources for port security, and they declined to support the Senate's user fee. Unable to reach agreement with the House conferees and the Administration, I agreed to authorize just the necessary funds, but the President was required by law to report to Congress within 6 months on a funding proposal to assist States and their ports in complying with security mandates for Federal security plans. That report has never been prepared and is 9 months overdue.

When the President's budget for FY 2004 came out, after the U.S. Coast Guard had estimated that it would take $7.4 billion of funding in order to comply with the port security requirements, there was no funding for port authority compliance in that year's budget resolution. I offered an amendment to the FY 2004 Budget Resolution which was unanimously accepted to add $1 billion to help defray the first year costs of port security--ultimately it was dropped from Conference. Two weeks later, the President was presented with a direct opportunity to fund port security programs: Congressional consideration of his emergency supplemental appropriations bill to pay for the war in Iraq and bolster homeland security. Again, the Administration funding request included no funding for port authorities to help them comply with the Federal mandate, so I offered an amendment to add $1 billion to the supplemental specifically to help ports meet the new security mandates. Despite unanimous approval in

the Senate 3 weeks earlier, the amendment was opposed by the Administration and defeated on the Senate floor on a straight party line vote.

Last year, I made another effort to address the port security funding inadequacies during consideration of the FY 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. Again, the Administration proposed no funding for port security grants in their 2004 request, so I offered an amendment to the bill to direct $300 million specifically to port security grants without increasing the overall cost of the bill. The Administration opposed the funding increase, and the amendment was defeated largely along party lines with only three Republicans supporting the amendment.

Until this year's budget the President has not requested one dime specifically for port security. He has opposed efforts to mandate the funds be raised from the users of the system, and this year's budget request is for only $46 million. Despite opposition from the White House, Congress has directed appropriations that have resulted in grants of $450 million to ports to help ensure compliance with the Federal security mandates, and so I know that this issue is an area of major concern. Ultimately, the funding issues must be addressed, and this bill proposes a user fee to pay for the costs of compliance of port security. I had considered the possibility of authorizing the Administration to either generate funds for port security via a user fee, or alternatively mandate that funds be directly transferred from funds collected by Customs duties, but because of jurisdictional issues determined not to do so. The maritime industry supports this approach, and I am not opposed to this approach, but want only to ensure, that one way or another, we have the necessary funding in place to set up the system of port security that this nation deserves. Simply put, there is just too much at stake to hope that security emerges.

This bill seeks to continue the work to correct the security and terrorism prevention needs at our maritime borders. There is much to be done and there is a continued need for government and industry cooperation. This bill works on some of that need, yet the major need is funding for port security, which I hope that we will be able to address in the Senate very soon.

I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed S.733, the Coast Guard Authorization bill of 2003, which I cosponsored. I am hopeful that the Senate can work quickly with the House and pass a final bill in both houses in the near future.

The Coast Guard has always taken on an impressive array of tasks that are important for our security, for the protection of our resources, and for the safety of our mariners. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have asked the Coast Guard to take on even more in the area of maritime security, while asking them to continue to carry out their traditional missions as effectively as before.

This legislation provides authorizations for Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2004 and Fiscal Year 2005 budgets, and also includes important new authority for the Coast Guard to better carry out its missions. While the President's budget request for these two years provided some increases, it was still far from adequate to ensure that the Coast Guard will be able to carry out all that we demand of it.

Thus, I am particularly pleased that I had the support of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in adding to the Fiscal Year 2004 authorization $491 million in authorizations not requested by the President. For Fiscal Year 2004, the bill authorizes approximately $7.032 billion. This is a 15-percent increase for the Coast Guard's budget over what Congress appropriated last year, and about 5 percent above the President's request for fiscal year 2004. The bill includes authorizations of $246 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for port security not requested by the President, including $100 million for operating expenses, to cover the increases in operating tempo that the Coast Guard has experienced over the past few years, $70 million for analyzing port security plans, and $36 million for three additional Marine Safety and Security Teams. These additional amounts are essential to the security of our ports and waterways, and of our maritime transportation industry.

For Fiscal Year 2005, the bill authorizes approximately $7.787 billion, a 10-percent increase over Fiscal Year 2004 authorized and enacted levels, including for port security operations. This is $327 million greater than the President proposed, over 4 percent higher than the President's request.

I have also been a firm supporter of the need to provide the Coast Guard with the tools it needs to get the job done. The Coast Guard needs to upgrade its core assets, in particular, its aging fleet of cutters. The Integrated Deepwater Program is the Coast Guard's program for achieving these upgrades, and the President has not requested sufficient funding in its budgets to even keep this program on its original track. I therefore strongly support the inclusion of an authorization of $702 million for this program in Fiscal Year 2004, which is $202 million above the President's budget request, and $708 million in Fiscal Year 2005, or $30 million over the President's request. These increases will allow the program to get back on its original schedule.

At the same time, I have significant concerns with respect to how well the Coast Guard is managing this procurement, and whether the unique method for procurement utilized by the Deepwater Program will be able to achieve the stated goals of minimizing costs and providing operational effectiveness. The Deepwater project is the single largest procurement program that the Coast Guard has managed to date. The Senate has voiced concerns about this program on numerous occasions over the past few years. A GAO analysis of the Deepwater project published in May 2001 entitled ``Coast Guard: Progress Being Made on Deepwater Project, but Risks Remain'' highlighted risks with the project, including concerns with the Coast Guard's ability to control costs by ensuring competition among subcontractors, and the Coast Guard's ability to effectively manage and oversee the acquisition phase of the project. GAO has identified the Deepwater Program as a ``high risk'' procurement.

GAO recently produced a new report on this subject, entitled ``Coast Guard's Deepwater Program Needs increased Attention to Management and Contractor Oversight.'' The report's major conclusions indicate that there is a need for significant improvement of the program and its oversight by the Coast Guard. First, GAO found that over a year and a half into the Deepwater program, the Coast Guard has

not put into place the key components needed to provide adequate oversight of the prime contractor. For example, the Coast Guard had not even agreed on specific criteria to measure the contractor's performance, yet awarded the contractor nearly the total amount possible as a bonus for the first year of the contract.

Second, GAO found that there is no clear, transparent and predictable opportunity for competition of the subcontracts under the Deepwater program. While the prime contractor uses the ``open business model'' to decide whether to ``make or buy'' Deepwater assets, this guidance is a philosophy--not a formal process with clear criteria and specific decision points--that encourages, but does not require competition. In fact, over 40 percent of the funds obligated to the first-tier subcontractors, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, have either remained with those companies or been awarded to their subsidiaries.

Perhaps most disturbing, according to Deepwater officials within the Coast Guard, it is unrealistic to believe that the Coast Guard would change contractors after the first five years of the program. Thus, there is little incentive for the prime contractor to achieve the performance goal of minimizing total ownership costs. This obviously could have serious implications for the American taxpayer.

I have also long been concerned that the Deepwater Program meets not only the letter but the spirit of our Buy America laws. A number of the subcontractors that have either received awards under the Deepwater Program, and/or are included in the contractor's proposal, make all or most of their parts overseas. Buy America was intended to ensure that the U.S. Federal government, including the U.S. military, did not contribute to the loss of American manufacturing jobs, yet here we have a major acquisition program for our 5th branch of the military, the U.S. Coast Guard, that appears to be doing just that.

As a result of concerns about the program, the Commerce Committee included in S. 733, as reported, a requirement that the Coast Guard provide a report to Congress which would include an analysis of the prime contractor's performance in meeting the two key goals of providing operational effectiveness and minimizing total ownership costs. However, based on this latest GAO report, and the need to ensure that Buy America is fully implemented, additional Congressional oversight of this major procurement is clearly warranted. Unless there are significant changes to the way business is conducted on this contract, there will be enormous problems in the future that may, in the long run, undermine this program.

(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I am likewise pleased that the Senate will pass this important authorization bill for the Coast Guard. I look forward to working with Senator McCain and the other members of the conference committee to reach a final consensus bill that we can adopt in both houses.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1218, the Oceans and Human Health Act, legislation being considered by the Senate today. This bill, which Senator Stevens and I introduced last year, was reported unanimously from the Commerce Committee, will spur the development of an exciting new field of research, one that explores the role of the oceans in human health. Senators Inouye, Breaux, Kerry, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Lautenberg, DeWine, Levin, and Kennedy have all lent their considerable support to the bill as cosponsors. I am also pleased to have worked closely with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee, Senators Judd Gregg and Ted Kennedy, in crafting the final manager's amendment to the bill.

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, established pursuant to the Oceans Act of 2000, is poised to issue its draft report with recommendations for a new national ocean policy. The draft report is likely to recommend increased Federal support for integrated and innovative ocean research initiatives such as in oceans and human health in order to focus attention on the increasingly complex interaction between humans and the sea. The Cceans and Human Health Act would establish a national interagency program that will coordinate research into oceans and human health and ensure the availability of an adequate Federal investment in this critical area. It also would authorize such a program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to strengthen its work in this important field of study.

Throughout history, society has turned to the oceans for food, transport, commerce and recreation. This

tremendous resource has enriched and sustained our existence. It is no coincidence that today, over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives in the coastal zone, and this number is increasing. In addition, over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade moves through our Nation's ports and this volume is expected to more than double by 2020. Our oceans are inextricably linked to our personal and economic well-being.

In recent years, the rich biodiversity of the world's seas has generated considerable interest. Scientists believe the oceans represent a promising source of novel compounds with therapeutic and/or disease-fighting capabilities. A 1999 National Research Council report, ``From Monsoons to Microbes,'' noted that nature has been the traditional source of new pharmaceuticals and found that over half of marketed drugs are extracted or produced from natural sources. Our oceans account for over 80 percent of the planet's biological productivity, yet little of it has been catalogued or studied. At present, there are only three marine compounds in clinical use--and these were developed in the 1950s. While there are some new compounds in the pipeline, we need to speed research efforts to ensure we get more products approved.

I am encouraged by research suggesting that sea sponges contain compounds which show promise in treating pancreatic cancer. And recently, a scientist analyzing a water sample from the Sargasso Sea, off Bermuda, discovered at least 1,800 new microbial species and more than 1.2 million genes in that sample. Imagine what new drug discoveries await researchers and the medical community.

Pioneering scientists are also needed to tackle marine environmental issues that affect human and marine life alike, such as ocean pollution and marine pathogens. Our marine resources are under growing environmental stresses. Signs of these stresses include ``dead zones,'' loss of coastal wetlands, changes in ocean salinity, contamination of fish and marine life, and increases in extreme weather events associated with global climate change. Over the past 2 weeks, over 60 dolphin carcasses have been found along Florida's panhandle beaches and bays. Preliminary test results point to one or more biotoxins that are associated with red tides. Certain biotoxins have been known to produce eye and respiratory irritation in humans. Dolphins are an important indicator species of environmental pollution and their unusually high mortality rates in Florida raise the issue of potential risks to human health.

Because oceans act as a route of exposure for human disease through ingestion of contaminated seafood or direct contact with saltwater containing toxins and disease-causing organisms, it is vital that we learn more about how public health is affected by the marine environment. We must ensure that the sea maintains its capacity to sustain itself without becoming a ``dead zone.'' We must find ways to monitor and reduce the occurrence of ocean toxins that kill marine mammals and taint seafood. As with cancer, our goal must be understanding and prevention, rather than relying exclusively on treatment.

Many research programs and laboratories perform research and related activities that could contribute significantly to a national research effort, but such efforts have not always realized their potential. To be successful, research into oceans and human health must integrate disciplines, bringing together oceanographers and biomedical researchers to better understand marine processes, reduce public health risks and enhance our biomedical capabilities.

The Oceans and Human Health initiative recently established at NOAA, and a joint program between the National Science Foundation, NSF, and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, already show tremendous promise, and this legislation provides further support for a coordinated Federal effort. The NIEHS and NSF initiative provides $6 million annually to establish centers of excellence focusing on harmful algal blooms, water and vectorborne diseases, and marine pharmaceuticls and probes. In addition, we provided NOAA with appropriations of $8 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and $10 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for an oceans and human health initiative focused on strengthening important oceans and human health research within NOAA's areas of focus, including health coasts and marine life.

Within NOAA, an interdisciplinary and medically oriented approach to ocean research can be found at two marine laboratories in Charleston, SC. The NOAA labs have partnered with the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the State of South Carolina, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the College of Charleston and are on the front lines of discovery and prevention, particularly in the emerging field of marine genomics. They are hard at work on todays' important public and marine environmental health issues. For instance, they are conducting research into dolphin health that will for the first time utilize a traditional medical approach to help us learn more about the health of dolphins in the wild.

This NOAA research collaboration epitomizes the variety of important disciplines that must work side by side if we are to make progress in understanding the connections between oceans and human health. It is home to cutting-edge research involving algal toxins, natural products with potential pharmaceutical applications, and viral and bacterial pathogens that cause disease in marine animals, with potential links to human illness, disease processes and natural product chemistry. The scientists use unique medical tools such as nuclear magnetic resonators to help map the cellular and genetic structure of marine organisms and have developed methods for detecting pesticides in water, sediments, fish, and marine mammals that may potentially affect both the health of the marine environment and human health. The scientists are also developing exposure, toxicology and disease models to assess pollution's effects on a variety of marine organisms. Their work will better define ocean health and bridge the gap with existing human health models.

Taken together, the NIEHS-NSF and NOAA research initiatives offer an excellent basis for building a comprehensive national program. In addition, a number of other Federal agencies are poised to make significant contributions.

The Oceans and Human Health Act provides the legislative framework for coordinated, national investment to improve understanding of marine ecosystems, address marine public health problems and tap into the ocean's potential contribution to new biomedical treatments and advances. At the heart of this legislation--and key to its success--is our commitment to building new partnerships among Federal health, science and ocean agencies, diverse scientific disciplines, and academic researchers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a more detailed summary of the legislation printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, yesterday South Carolina lost a valuable public servant and I lost a very dear friend. Some 66 years ago John Carl West and I came to the Citadel as freshmen. The attention of the freshmen in those days was responding to the howling orders of the upperclassmen. But it wasn't long before John came to my attention. We both had COL Carl Coleman in political science and Colonel Coleman loved those Time magazine articles on public events. He would spring them on the class with a test. I would barley know half of the answers, but John Carl would get 100 every time. I felt I ought to pay closer attention to the smartest in a class of 525. In those days, at different heights, we were in different companies and different barracks, but we got thrown together on the Roundtable in the International Relations Club. I learned quickly that John was not only the academician but long on common sense.

Along with the other members of our class, John and I both left for the war shortly after graduation, but we ended up in the same class at the University of South Carolina Law School after the war. I got home the day after Thanksgiving in 1945 and Dean Friersen allowed that I could audit the classes and take the exams in January and if I passed them then I could be considered a law school student. Many in the class furnished me their notes, most notably John West. By January the 17th I was through the first semester and by May already through the first year. John and I and others marched on the legislature so that we veterans could continue in the summer and by August the

following year I was through a 3-year course in less than 2 years. But I couldn't keep up with John. He was in a bigger rush, passing the bar exam before graduation, teaching at the university and forming a law partnership.

I used to kid him that I was catching up when in one election he was running for the State Senate and I was running for Lieutenant Governor. I carried Kershaw County by 1,200 votes and he became the Kershaw County Senator by three. John was more or less my lawyer when I was Governor. As a young Governor I needed help. My strong suit was that I knew the general assembly intimately, having been the presiding officer in both houses, so I had a three-man committee in the house with Floyd Spence, Rex Carter and Bob McNair, and a three-man committee on the senate side with Billy Goldberg, Marshall Parker and John West. West was astute and could immediately point the conflicts in a different way to get things done. This house-senate group would, off the record, vet all of my initiatives. Working together, most all of them got done and not a single veto was overridden in that 4-year period.

When West ran for Governor, South Carolina faced its toughest and most heated political choice. The school discrimination decision had hit with full force and so had racial politics. The school busses were being overturned. I had already been elected twice to the U.S. Senate and so I could give my schoolhood friend some help. South Carolina was lucky that John West became the Governor. He didn't mind using his political capital to get things done. John moved immediately to set a course for racial harmony in South Carolina with the appointment of James Clyburn as the head of the Human Relations Committee. The Clyburn decisions on the most sensitive situations had the full force and support of Governor West. A new day and a new direction for the State was set. The same was true with labor. A flood of industry had commenced by 1971 and the resistance of national labor was hitting the work force and communities of the State. Again, Governor West responded with the appointment of Ed McGowan, backing him up 100 percent. In the field of mental health, Governor West again set the tone and direction of mental illness treatment in South Carolina. Working with his brilliant wife, Lois, the cottage system in mental health clinics was launched, which today still makes South Carolina a forerunner in mental illness treatment.

But I guess it was John's appointment as Ambassador to Saudi Arabia that brought out the unique combination of personality and brilliance. I know the Arabs I--invaded Algeria and Tunisia in World War II and the tribal way of life was next to impossible. To form national policy and protect the United States interests with one of these countries isn't easy. The Kingdom felt that not only was John West close to President Carter, but he was almost family. He handled the knottiest problems with the greatest of ease. I used to kid him on several occasions, as he handled difficult problems, that that was the Arab blood in him.

At the end of all these important political offices John didn't retire. He maintained a vital interest in everything effecting the State of South Carolina. Like me, many would continue to call on him to see what John thought about a situation and he readily gave of his time and leadership. He had instituted a Chair in International Studies at the Citadel, continued to instruct political science at the University of South Carolina and on national problems was always conversant and wise. Many at home didn't realize the events of Washington, but John was my best read friend as well as my best friend. The truth is, he is the best friend that South Carolina ever had.

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

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

Mr. President, I will address the most important subject we have confronting us in this country. It is brought about by a headline yesterday in the Los Angeles Times, ``Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas.'' I know the distinguished Presiding Officer, as well as this particular Senator, was shocked to see that. But it is the truth. It is unfortunate because of the policy of this particular body, the Senate, we are as guilty as the President of the United States.

I hear my colleagues weeping and wailing, how could he say such a thing? Heavens above, how could you pass fast track? It's just shipping jobs overseas faster. There's all this free trade, free trade whining; all of this level the playing field, level the playing field but we're shipping jobs overseas.

What really happens is the distinguished President--I don't know what his situation is with respect to being AWOL in the National Guard, but I make a categorical statement--and many others are AWOL from the trade war. Now let's talk about the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war, the terrorism war, but more than anything else, a trade war.

Senator, let me tell you how to start one. It was in the earliest States, the colonies that are great forefathers started. That is the greatest generation. We sit around here, a few of us, veterans from World War II being called the greatest generation. But the real heroes are not here. The real greatest generation was Madison and Jefferson and Washington and Hamilton and Adams. That was the real great generation of our time.

The colonies had just won their freedom when the mother country corresponded back and proposed exactly what we hear today, economists running around all over the land yelling ``comparative advantage.'' Today, we read in the Los Angeles Times article about the comparative advantage. But the doctrine started with David Ricardo, when the British suggested what to do is trade back to the mother country what you produce best--your comparative advantage--and they will trade back with you what they produce best. Free trade, free trade, free trade.

Alexander Hamilton wrote a little booklet, ``Report On Manufacturers.'' I say to the Senator, there is one copy in the Library of Congress. I have been allowed to make a copy of it, but that is the only original copy I know of. But, in any event, rather than wasting the time of putting it in the Record here, in a line, Hamilton told the British: Bug off. We are not going to remain your colonies, shipping to you the rice, the cotton, the indigo, the timber, the iron ore, and the natural produce of the land, and continue to import the manufacturing.

There was a law before we won our freedom that you could not erect a manufacturing plant in the Colonies. It was against the law to produce. Oh, yes.

So how do you start a trade war? On July 4, 1789, the second measure that passed the Congress in its history--the first was the Seal of the United States--but the second, on July 4, 1789, was a tariff bill. It was protectionism. It was a 50-percent tariff on over 60 articles. That is how we started to build up our economic strength.

Our economic strength, I say to the Senator, is the vital leg in the three-legged stool of a nation's security. You have the one leg of a nation's values. That was unquestioned until we started preemptive wars. But we are known the world around--they do not hate us. They do not like this policy, but they do not hate Americans. I have traveled the world for the last 37 years, and I can tell you they love America. They revere our stand for individual freedom, democracy, and human rights.

We have sacrificed the world around; and we still are. We have, counting in Afghanistan and Iraq and Kuwait, 14 peacekeeping forces around the world right now. So we have sacrificed.

But there is no sacrifice for this war in Iraq back home, and there is no sacrifice in this Congress. We need a tax cut so we can get reelected. So we tell the poor fellow in downtown Baghdad: We hope you don't get killed. And we really hope you don't get killed because we want you to hurry back so we can give you the bill.

But, in any event, the second leg is the military, unquestioned as the world's superpower. We have the fine soldiers we have deployed in both Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in those peacekeeping outfits. More particularly, the economic leg, that third leg is what has been fractured.

Now how did we build it up? How do you build an economy? Every country in the world is engaged in this trade war. You have to compete. You have to protect your economic interests.

After the forefathers came Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party. When they came to President Lincoln and said: We are going to build the transcontinental railroad, and we are going to get steel, he said: We are not going to get the steel from Britain. We are going to build our own steel mills. When they were completed, they not only had a transcontinental railroad but a steel capacity under Abraham Lincoln.

In the darkest days of the Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt protected America's agriculture. It is still the envy the world around. But we put in import quotas, subsidies for agriculture, and they should be protected unless we want to lose that. They jump all over poor Trade Representative Zoellick. He finally got a free trade agreement with Australia. There were exemptions--dairy exemptions, farm exemptions. You get what you can. We don't have just one agreement and that is the end of the world. If you cannot get an agreement with Australia, our best ally--and their standard of living, they have labor rights, environmental rights galore in Australia--if we cannot get a free trade agreement with that group, we are not going to get a free trade agreement with anybody. So we got it. I would support that because we have the same standard of living.

Not only President Roosevelt, but Dwight David Eisenhower was a protectionist. He put on oil import quotas--back in the mid-1950s.

And John Fitzgerald Kennedy--he had import quotas on textiles. He had a seven-point program to protect textiles. I helped write it. I can see me down in the press room now with Pierre Salinger and Andy Hatcher, the assistant in the press room in the White House. I will give you an original copy of the seven-point program. But we saved, with the multifiber arrangement, textile production in America until we started giving it away willy-nilly in yarn. We gave away $2 billion to Turkey in Desert Storm. We gave away $1 billion here and $1 billion there. They continue with the African, the Caribbean agreements, and everywhere else.

President Reagan came down to South Carolina, and he committed to protect textiles. We passed the textile bill through the House and the Senate just to enforce the multifiber agreement. He vetoed it. We passed it under

``Papa'' Bush through the House and the Senate just to enforce the multifiber agreement, and ``Papa'' Bush, who had committed to textiles, vetoed it.

They keep coming in to Greenville, SC, promising, promising anything during an election. I have to come up here to Washington and watch them go back on their promises. So don't give me any of this stuff about protectionism.

Let me tell you, fair and square, we are in a trade war. That is how you build up your economic strength. Before you open your front door, I say to the Senator from Vermont, for ``Jeffords Manufacturing,'' you will need to pay minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. You will need to have clean air, clean water, plant closing notice, parental leave, safe working place, safe machinery--I can keep going down the list.

So what happens? You can go to China and open a plant for 58 cents an hour--and none of that, none of that. Still, let's talk ``cents.'' If your competition goes, you have to go. If you continue to work your own people, you go bankrupt. So, you see, they have given dignity to this dilemma with this headline: Supports the Jobs Overseas. We in the Congress are responsible for setting the trade policy. We are the guilty parties around here. We have to change the culture and say: Don't worry about this free trade and that you might start a trade war. We are in the war.

We started unilaterally disarming for a wonderful purpose after World War II. Let me tell you where we were before World War II. This is the most interesting thing because this is not a politician speaking. This is none other than the famous author Edmund Morris in ``Theodore Rex.'' I will just read you a few short paragraphs about where we were at the turn of the century. I am quoting from ``Theodore Rex'':

The first year of the new century found her worth twenty-

five billion more than her nearest rival, Great Britain, with

a gross national product more than twice that of Germany and

Russia. The United States was already so rich in goods and

services that she was more self-sustaining than any

industrial power in history.

Indeed, it could only consume a fraction of what it

produced. The rest went overseas at prices other exporters

found hard to match. As Andrew Carnegie said, ``the nation

that makes the cheapest steel has other nations at its

feet.'' More than half of the world's cotton, corn, copper,

and oil flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one

third of all steel, iron, silver and gold.

Even if the United States were not so blessed with raw

materials, the excellence of her manufactured products

guaranteed her dominance of the world markets. Current

advertisements in the British magazines gave the impression

that the typical Englishman woke to the ring of an Ingersoll

alarm, shaved with a Gillette razor, combed his hair with

Vaseline tonic, buttoned his Arrow shirt, hurried downstairs

for Quaker Oats, California figs, Maxwell House coffee,

commuted in a Westinghouse tram (body by Fisher) rose to his

office in an Otis elevator and worked all day with his

Waterman pen under the efficient glare of Edison lightbulbs.

``It only remains,'' one Fleet Street wag suggested, ``for

[us] to take American coal to Newcastle.'' Behind the joke

lay real concerns. The United States was already supplying

beer to Germany, pottery to Bohemia, and oranges to Valencia.

Now we import all of it. And why? Because at the end of World War II, in order to prosper, we had to spread prosperity, the Marshall plan. We sent over not just the money of the Marshall billions, we sent over the expertise, the equipment. And it worked. We industrialized Europe and the Pacific rim and capitalism has defeated communism. So it worked. But in that 50-year period, we more or less unilaterally disarmed.

I can remember back as a young Governor in 1960, I testified before the old international tariff commission, and Tom Dewey was the lawyer for the Japanese. He was chasing me around, and I was attesting to the fact that if this continued, with imports of textiles, 10 percent of the American consumption in textiles would be represented in imports. Over two-thirds of the clothing I am looking at now is imported, not 10 percent. Over 86 percent of the shoes are imported. And so it goes with automobiles and steel and hand tools and everything else.

I have been watching Lou Dobbs. He has had a series on how the world is sending us their architects; then they are sending over medical personnel, and doctors in America are sending mammograms to be read in India. And then I find out that my utility in South Carolina--SCANA-- was administering my light bills in downtown Bangalore, India, and my Food Stamp Program at the State capital in my home State had moved to India. I said: Heavens above.

The other night I turned on the series, and now we are moving our law work to lawyers abroad. Instead of hiring paralegals for $75,000 to $80,000 a year in New York to do the background work on a brief or an appeal--they are moving the work to lawyers overseas. They are going to move everything overseas except politicians. We are already too cheap, I can tell you that. They will be importing everything except us politicians. And we keep sitting around whining and beating the desks and showing charts how we are leveling the playing field.

How do you think you level the playing field? You raise a barrier against a barrier and then remove them both. This proposition of the Golden Rule doesn't work in business, I can tell you that.

Yes, sir.

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

I surely am.

I tell you, it has been ship, ship, ship. And who is financing this extravagance we have going? Let me bring you up to date. In 2003, as of the end of November, the Chinese had borrowed, in the People's Republic $143.8 billion and at Hong Kong $55.5 billion. So they have financed your and my extravagance to the tune of $199.7 billion--they are financing our debt.

Treasury Secretary John Snow goes to China and he says: How about floating your yen here so we can do away with that advantage you have? And the fellows in Beijing say: Bug off, boy. Go on back home. We might start selling your bonds rather than buying them, if you don't think that will wreck your economy and get the Democrats elected in November. That is what they told Snow. And Snow put his tail between his legs and came home. This is what controls the trade policy. We don't control it because we abdicate. Just like President Bush is AWOL in the trade war, we have been AWOL in the trade war--we have, this Congress.

Article I, section 8, of the Constitution reads that the Congress of the United States shall regulate foreign commerce. What do we do? We bug out. We want the money from the big guys and the rich guys and the multinationals, so we bug out and say, oh, no, you take it, Mr. President, we will give you fast track so we cannot even amend trade agreements and you have the responsibility. With that responsibility, he goes AWOL. Here is the headline. And we are AWOL.

You have the candidates running all over the land weeping and wailing about jobs. Let me tell you one thing, Mr. President. If you are going to try to rebuild an economy, you have to do one thing. I am going to give you our jobs omnibus bill and we will draw it up and I will get the distinguished Senator from Vermont to look at it and see what he thinks of it.

No. 1, what we have to do is immediately quit financing the move of jobs overseas. I will never forget, I called Walter Allen Drissi. In Lexington, SC, I helped him with the water and sewer lines. He went out and got himself organized and started a high-tech company, Avenax. He got involved with Bill Gates and MCI. So 4 or 5 years ago, when his stock was up, I called Walter

out in California and I said: Now, when you expand, I want a plant somewhere in South Carolina. We were good to you and you still have a home in Columbia.

He said: I will keep my home. I love South Carolina, but I don't make anything in this country. He said: I got my research and sales out here. He said: I go right to China for my product. I get a year-to-year contract. I don't have to build a plant. They have the plant and the workforce. I got a quality man and I am sitting here with the Internet. I watch it every day. My good and trusted man watches the quality. I make two or three visits a year. At the end of the year, I have made a wonderful profit. If I haven't, I haven't lost anything really because I don't have to renew the contract. If I have done better than expected, I get another contract. It is a sweetheart deal.

That is what is going on with American business. Do you know who the enemy within is? The enemy within is our best organizations--the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business. They are running all over the floor saying: free trade, free trade, free trade. Are you for free trade? And we jump like monkeys and say, yes, I am for free trade, but I want to level the playing field. This is nauseating. I have been watching this for years.

Even the newspapers are against it. They make a majority of their profits on retail advertising, and the retailers buy all their products overseas.

I used to sit right where the Senator is standing, talking about how retailers have 100,000 articles at Christmastime, and when they run out of supplies and need another 10,000 dozen quick they would get it from New Jersey. But now they make a way greater profit on the imported article than on the New Jersey production. So the retailers make all their profits on the imported articles, and they advertise and they call up and they give the already canned editorials to the newspapers, so all the newspapers are hollering free trade, free trade, saying it creates jobs. It loses jobs.

I have lost 58,000 jobs since President Bush has taken office. Come on. My State is in trouble. That is why all the candidates were running around there making promises. They started a movement. But they have to understand that we have to change the culture.

How do you change the culture? You change the culture by, No. 1, quit financing them, and letting them keep the profits they make overseas. They don't have to pay income tax. That has to stop. We have a bill in that takes those benefits from overseas production and gives it to the particular domestic manufacturer that continues to work his own people.

No. 2, we have to start enforcing our laws. I have worked with the private community over the years in customs law and enforcement of trade laws, and it has been left to the manufacturer and the private entity to enforce it.

I will never forget the final climax of this so-called enforcement in customs laws occurred back when President Reagan was President. If you had a problem, you had to go first before the International Trade Administration, prove a dumping violation, come before the International Trade Commission and prove an injury, and then go to the U.S. Supreme Court and prove the legality; and then you have one final step, where the President of the United States, on national security provisions, can vitiate the whole thing.

In the Zenith case, they won it all. They won before the Trade Administration and the International Trade Commission. They won before the Supreme Court. Then the Cabinet was gathered around the table and they agreed unanimously to enforce the finding. In walked President Reagan and he said: I have talked to Prime Minister of Japan and we are going to have to reverse that. That was the end of it--three years, millions of dollars, all kinds of motions and pleadings and everything else, and it didn't get anywhere.

So the real trial bar in trade cases has just about disappeared because it is not worth the billable hours to go through the exercise. We need an Assistant Attorney General on textile laws. We have an Assistant Attorney General on antitrust. We need an Assistant Attorney General on trade laws and on dumping.

We ought to start enforcing our dumping or selling lost leaders below cost. That is against the law in the domestic economy and the capitalistic society that we have, to have lost leaders and sell below cost. That is exactly what they are doing.

That Lexus that costs $32,000 in America sells for $42,000 in Tokyo on the main street there. They have been selling below cost here, financing with the banking system to get market share. They don't care about profits. Market share is the competition.

They say it is not WTO compatible. Well, if it is not World Trade Organization compatible, we have to change that or get out of the World Trade Organization. After getting that, in addition to enforcing our laws, we have to make sure we have the customs agents.

I got an office in the Customs house in Charleston, SC. I used to go to them on textiles and they said: Senator, wait a minute, we are shorthanded. Do you want me to enforce drugs or textiles?

I said: No, no, let's be sure we get the drugs.

Now I go to them and they say: Wait a minute. Do you want me to enforce homeland security, or drugs, or textiles?

I say homeland security and drugs, forget about the textiles.

The Treasury Department and Customs testified that they got 5 billion in transshipments--illegal transshipments of textiles into this country. We could save thousands of jobs if we could just get that law enforced.

We need specifically to fully fund the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the Advanced Technology Program. We need a list of the critical materials in the Defense Department that are necessary to our national security. We must make sure we aren't running a deficit in the balance of those critical materials.

Do you know why we waited that long to go into Desert Storm? We couldn't get the flat panel displays for the lookdown, see-down, before we could go in and decimate Saddam. Now, for much of that defense materiel we have to depend on allies whom this administration has made generally unfriendly.

Come on, in this terror war, might doesn't make right; right makes might in the war on terror. Don't worry about a big old defense budget. Get me a big old State Department budget. Let's start making friends. We can't do this by ourselves. We are whistling ``Dixie'' running around with an atom bomb and a bunch of GIs killing.

The question is: Was it really worth the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam with 530-some American dead, over 3,000 injured, $160 billion in costs, and creating more terrorism rather than less terrorism? We actually, this minute, have more terrorism rather than less terrorism. We hope--and we want to support our effort in Iraq to bring it to as quick a conclusion as possible--we hope we have democracy, but right now, if you had to call the hand, it would be a loser because we were misled into this war.

Saddam Hussein didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, but when the President--and I want to explain that vote--when the President on October 7, 2002, said there is clear evidence of peril--those are his words, ``clear evidence of peril''--we cannot wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud.

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

I will be delighted to yield.

We ought to make my colleague, Senator Inhofe, the inspector rather than David Kay, who didn't find any of what the Senator was

listing. In other words, I don't think there is any more argument. There might have been a little bit here, a little bit there, but there was no imminent threat. There was no clear evidence of peril. You can find stuff that could have killed anybody. We could all get the chicken flu, but we are not trying to eliminate the State of Delaware because they have a little chicken flu there. Come on.

Yes.

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

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

Yes.

The Senator from Vermont has been overgenerous to me, but I think what we both agree we are at fault as much as the President in shipping jobs overseas. We are the ones under the Constitution, article I, section 8, the Congress, not the President, not the Supreme Court, the Congress shall regulate foreign commerce, but we have abdicated our responsibility, and we have gladly done so. Why? Because the Conference Board and the Business Roundtable and the United States Chamber of Commerce gives us money, and we need the money to run. So we take the money and run and avoid our responsibilities.

We have to change the whole culture. We are into a dynamic trade war. We had a plus balance 10 years ago with Europe. We have a negative balance now. NAFTA hasn't worked. We had a $5 billion-plus balance before NAFTA. Now it is a negative $15 billion balance, and the average Mexican worker is not making less. What we really need is a Marshall Plan for our neighbor, the country of Mexico. That is what we ought to have rather than going back and forth.

We had last year a $500 billion trade deficit, and about $500 billion in a budget deficit. So we have infused--infused--$1 trillion in the last year into the economy, and we created no jobs. That should worry everybody in the Congress. And what the President proposed for next year's budget is not a $521 billion deficit. Look on page 392, and you will find it's a $726 billion budget deficit that he proposes, and he doesn't include anything for Afghanistan and Iraq and the cost of the alternative minimum tax, which is another $200 billion.

We are in real trouble. We have to sit down in a bipartisan way and quit running around with the signs saying the President is AWOL, because the Congress is AWOL. That is my beef. I fought these trade bills. I couldn't get anybody's attention, but now we have their attention. Baloney with that Business Roundtable, and profits, and downsizing and moving overseas. Let's make it profitable for manufacturers to do business in the United States. That is common sense. I say to the Senator from Vermont, doesn't he want to do that? I am sure he does. I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind attention. These are the most important issues we have ever had. There isn't any question about that.

The January 27th New York Times reports that at a business meeting in Davos, Zhu Min, an economic adviser to the President of China, was met with silence when he asked Americans how their country planned to finance its economy with both blue collar manufacturing and white collar service jobs going elsewhere.

The world has changed. Come on, wake up and start working out a good jobs policy in this Congress and quit blaming each other. There is plenty of blame to go around for all of us. But when it gets so bad that the economic adviser to the President of China, is asking how you pay your bill with all of these jobs going over here, and the economic adviser to the President of the United States says, ``Right on, we need more of them overseas, it is good for the country,'' we are in real trouble.

I thank the distinguished Senator.

I yield the floor.