Floor Statements

Mr. President, on Friday night, John McKissick, of Summerville, SC, won his 500th victory as the head coach of the Summerville Green Wave high school football team, and this Senator rises to congratulate this towering giant of coaches.

I want to put this in perspective. That is almost 100 more victories than Eddie Robinson, the winningest coach ever in college football, had at Grambling and Leland. That is 170 more victories than Don Shula, the winningest coach ever in the NFL had with the Miami Dolphins and Baltimore Colts. This is a record that not Bear Bryant, not Woody Hayes, not Tom Landry, not Vince Lombardi, not any coach--pro, college, or high school has ever come close to ever seeing.

He started coaching in 1952, 2 years before Strom Thurmond entered the Senate, 14 years before I came, and now he'll outlast us both. In 5 decades at Summerville High School, he has 10 State championships and 26 regional titles under his belt; and many of the 3,000 teenagers he has coached went on to win scholarships at colleges across the country. In this time, he has had only two losing seasons, and he has never missed a game. Most of all, he has kept his priorities straight: education first, football second.

In my part of the country, John McKissick is a legend. I know all my football-fanatic colleagues join me in saying to John: you're a national legend, too. You have done more for the sport of high school football than any person in the country.

Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee. As the Senators know, Medicare contractors play a critical role, partnering with the Federal Government to administer the Medicare program. This year, these contractors will process over one billion Medicare claims; they are the primary point of contact for beneficiaries and providers and provide the first line of defense against Medicare fraud. They are very efficient, with contractors' administrative costs representing less than 1 percent of total Medicare benefits.

While the subcommittee has done its best to provide needed funding for Medicare contractors over the years, the fact exists that CMS and its Medicare contractors have been severely underfunded for years. The problem has been more acute since the mid-to-late 1990s with the enactment of new Medicare laws placing additional responsibilities with insufficient resources to perform these new duties, e.g., HIPAA, BBA '97, BBRA '99, BIPA 2000. Clearly funding has not kept pace with additional work.

The pending Medicare reform legislation, S. 1, if enacted, will exacerbate funding problems for Medicare contractors. Hundreds of changes are made that will require more work by contractors, such as system changes to adjust provider payments, expedited appeals processes and new coverage requirements.

I know that the chairman and ranking member share my concern that Medicare contractors receive adequate funding. The budget constraints we face resulted in an insufficient 1.6 percent increase for Medicare contractor operations, even though claims volume is expected to rise 11 percent. The Medicare Integrity Program, MIP, which provides contractors with dedicated funding for critical fraud and abuse detection activities, is not increased at all. Further, the money we provide does not account for any of the new responsibilities contractors will face if Medicare reform is enacted.

I am concerned that inadequate funding would be devastating to the administration of Medicare and the safeguarding of the Medicare trust fund. Those that will feel the impact most are Medicare beneficiaries and the providers that care for them.

I am told that if funding is not increased to an adequate level, many Medicare contractors would have to reduce staff levels and eliminate certain beneficiary and provider outreach activities. Since claims must be paid, the result will be decreased customer service to beneficiaries and providers. I'm certain we'll hear from our constituents when they are faced with busy phone lines, longer wait times for questions to be answered, reduced provider training on how to properly submit a claim leading to the submission and potential payment of improper claims.

I ask the Senators from Pennsylvania and Iowa to work with me to ensure that Medicare contractors receive increased funding within the available amounts appropriated in the bill. This is particularly critical if Medicare reform is enacted.

Mr. President, this month George Garris, the longest serving refuge manager in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announced he will be retiring and I rise to salute him. There's no question in my mind that George has done more to protect the wildlife in my State than anyone I know. He is the Teddy Roosevelt of South Carolina.

For years George has been telling me he would retire as soon as he finished this one project. Then he would find another project--and the same thing, he was going to retire when it was done. This went on and on for years and years. It went on because George wanted to leave future generations something good. He pushed to save thousands of acres of natural habitats in my State. Years from now when we still enjoy South Carolina's natural beauty, we can thank George Garris.

George began his productive career in the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1959, and today is the steward of four South Carolina Lowcountry refuges that he helped create or expand--the ACE Basin, the Santee and Waccamaw Refuges, and Cape Romain. He also successfully saved both the endangered red wolf and loggerhead sea turtles.

We will miss George, and I know all the Members of this body join me in thanking him for his esteemed public service and wishing him happiness and good health in the years ahead.

Mr. President, late last month South Carolina lost one of our most distinguished citizens, and I rise today to salute Richard ``Dixie'' Walker.

Dixie was a scholar in East Asian studies. He brought an international studies institute to the University of South Carolina in the 1960s, when such programs were not being offered anywhere in the South. In the 1980s President Reagan asked him to be the Ambassador to South Korea, and he was one of the most successful ever.

To share with my colleagues just how much Dixie meant to all of us back home, I ask that this very eloquent homage to him be printed in the Record. It was written by John McAlister, who studied under Dixie at Yale University in the 1950s.

The homage follows:

Ambassador Richard L. Walker has brought inspiration and irony to all who have had the privilege to be his friend, student, or compatriot in the cause of freedom. He inspired us by his eloquent testimony to the universal values of freedom, by his articulation of the human anguish at freedom's lack, by his insistence on the cultural foundation of freedom, and by his emphasis that freedom depends on our respecting the diversity and dignity of the cultures of humanity. He evoked irony to signal the paradox of life, the necessity for good humor in all things, and the need to see things as they really are rather than how they may appear.

His nickname artfully combined both inspiration and irony. The original ``Dixie Walker'' was, as those of us old enough to remember that irreverent baseball player, the antithesis of our elegant friend and mentor ``Dixie.'' Perhaps that is why our ``Dixie's'' nickname seemed so comfortable. It calls attention to the ever present ironies and tragedies of life and how they can be surmounted with humor and humility as well as with virtue, excellence, and compassion. He left us an enduring legacy of good jokes, profound cultural insights, and admonitions to check our self-assuredness by deeper reflection. The nickname ``Dixie'' made the point without heavy handed fanfare.

Time has happily eroded the identity of the original profane ``Dixie Walker'' and our ``Dixie'' has given a distinguished luster of scholarly and ambassadorial dignity to the nickname. Transforming seemingly valueless and unfamiliar things into new and greater worth is his legacy that goes far beyond the burnishing of an old nickname into a mark of honor. The name ``Dixie Walker'' will forever be inseparable from the dramatic defense and then flourishing of freedom in East Asia over the past six decades. Many brave Americans and courageous Asians of all cultures and social conditions deserve our reverence for their sacrifice and dedication to this still incomplete and perilous cause that at this very hour is threatened by potential nuclear conflict. ``Dixie's'' legacy in the cause demands to be honored for reasons that may still not be widely understood yet are fundamental to an appreciation of his enduring endowment to freedom, not alone in Asia.

Conspicuous in our memory is ``Dixie's'' historic ambassadorship to the Republic of Korea, the longest serving in our history, punctuated with tension-filled drama in the aftermath of assassinations, the bloody military suppression of a popular uprising, the Soviet destruction of a Korean commercial airliner with total and tragic loss of life, and student protests advocating democratic reforms to mention only a few. Navigating the treacherous shoals of the Korean spirit was never expected to be the ideal of a morning calm. In the storms, ``Dixie'' was a firm unflustered pilot whose navigational recommendations helped steersmen set the course to a safer harbor of Korean democracy, to winning the Olympic Games for Seoul, to campuses now filled with free debate, and to a prosperity of today unimagined at the beginning of his ambassadorship.

Conspicuous also to us is ``Dixie's'' historic leadership in bringing new

vigor and distinction to one of America's oldest universities. Carolina now has global reach thanks in part to graduates of the Institute of International Studies that now bears ``Dixie's'' name. These graduates now are leaders in their own right in positions of great responsibility in the cause of freedom, endowing their own colleagues, students and friends with the inspiration given to them by ``Dixie Walker.'' Their names may sometimes be awkward for the native Carolina tongue to pronounce or for the Carolina ear to comprehend. But these distinguished foreign leaders will forever be linked in their hearts and spirit to Carolina and to the undying example of their mentor.

Less widely known than his history-making ambassadorship and Carolina leadership is his landmark scholarship on communism in China, the controversy it sparked a half century ago when it first appeared, the fierce criticism he endured, and the rightful vindication he never sought and not even grudgingly received. In the winter of 1956-57, the Yale University Press published ``China Under Communism: The First Five Years'' one of the first scholarly analyses of China under Chairman Mao. The book was the focus of a front page review in the Sunday New York Times Book Review. Praise came from the informed public and was widespread.

But there were academic critics who lamented the book as an ``anti- communist tract.'' At the heart of the controversy was the assertion in certain scholarly quarters that communism in China was legitimate because it was founded on timeless Chinese cultural traditions. ``Dixie's'' view was the reverse. He asserted that Maoist authoritarianism would not last precisely because of its attempted destruction of Chinese culture. Twenty years and millions of lives later, ``Dixie's'' view prevailed because Maoism was what he said it to be. Maoism did not outlive Mao. Chinese culture suffered deterioration from which full recovery will not be quick. Many past and current leaders and their families were jailed, some killed. The pain for China lingers on but cultural renewal is accelerating. A kind of ``Dixie Walker'' focus on underlying fundamentals of culture is steadily gaining momentum in music, dance, visual arts, motion pictures, science, religion, and in public debate. China is on its way to new levels of cultural achievement as he said it would when freedom began to take hold.

Why should the controversy and unpleasantness of China a half century ago be retold at a time of homage and remembrance? Why not let the past remain in the past? After all, a vaunted tradition among Carolina natives is the warning not to look too deeply into the past lest unwanted things be found. What is to be gained? An understanding of the essence of ``Dixie's'' life and his insights into the character of freedom is what awaits our reflection. What has been true for China is true elsewhere. Tyrants don't endure. Freedom prevails when peoples unite in their common humanity while giving respect and dignity to those things that make them different from one another. Power by the few yields to the freedom of the many when unity is based on cultural diversity and dignity.

Brave Americans are once again risking their lives for freedom, our own and that of subject peoples, fighting in far off lands whose cultures defy our popular comprehension and confound our leader's predictions. Our military strength is absolutely indispensable for this fight. Alone, it is insufficient. Once again as so frequently over the past half century, we find how closely our own freedom is linked to languages, cultures, religions, family patterns, and traditions that we do not know and for which there has been limited study. What to do? ``Dixie Walker's'' living legacy will always be there to remind us that freedom is never to be taken for granted and cannot be assured without our learning about, understanding, respect, and nourishing of the cultures of the human family on which it is founded.

Farewell beloved friend! You will live forever in our hearts and everywhere that freedom is cherished.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the termination of my comments, the distinguished Senator from Montana be recognized.

Mr. President, it is somewhat out of order when I make comments on trade in that the distinguished majority leader says he wants to do energy, he wants to do judges, he wants to do the supplemental, and he wants to do trade. I talked to him earlier this morning, and I said: I would be glad to fill in at any time they have a lapse. He said: Well, it wouldn't be until tomorrow. Then later in the exchange--there has been an intramural all morning long on procedures-- he said: Perhaps on Saturday.

So I thought once the Pastore rule had been complied with and rule 19(1)(b), the three hours had been completed--the distinguished former leader, the Senator from West Virginia, and I are the only two that remember the Pastore rule. Now that I have the floor, I have time to comment in a deliberate fashion. And while my distinguished former chairman and now ranking member of the Finance Committee is on the floor, since I am talking about trade, I want to express a frustration and make this observation.

The main problem we have is how to pay our bills. The President has just put out a budget deficit projection of just a $455 billion deficit. That is on page 1 of his report. But on page 57 of the report, you will see the deficit will really reach $698 billion this year. As of this minute, the public debt to the penny is $503 billion. But second to that particular problem is the matter before us of jobs, economic strength, and manufacturing capacity.

I will never forget Akio Morita, former chairman of the board of Sony. Morita was visiting Chicago, and lecturing about Third World countries. And he admonished that a Third World country had to develop a strong manufacturing capacity in order to become a nation state. And later on, he diverted and pointed and said to me about the United States: That world power that loses its manufacturing capacity will cease to be a world power.

At the end of World War II, we had 40 percent of the workforce of America engaged in production manufacturing. Now we are down to 11.2 percent, and soon it will be 10 percent. So as a result of the scheme, I should call it, of the Finance Committee, we will have 10 percent of Americans working, and the other 90 percent eating or talking about it. And I hear these big voices around saying: World power, we are the only world. We are not a world power. No, no. We are in a very weakened position.

Right to the point, when I came to the Senate I got on the Commerce Committee. I had practiced customs law. I thought I was getting into trade because the Commerce Committee used to be the Committee of Foreign Commerce. Under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress of the United States shall regulate foreign commerce--not the President, not fast track, not some wavering trade minister running around Doha saying he is

going to do away with dumping laws--but the Congress.

And I found out that my distinguished chairman, Senator Magnuson at the time, was interested in exports, since he represented Boeing. Foreign commerce had reverted over to the Finance Committee. They had the reciprocal trade agreement. They had the Special Trade Representative. And indirectly, I became a sort of a study of the Finance Committee. I had a fellow named Claude Wilde from Texas come up to me, when I was just a freshman Senator. I was taken to the third floor of the old Statler Hilton. And he said: Yes, we are going to get rid of that fellow Yarborough. We are going to get that fellow Bentsen up here because he is better on oil.

I said: On oil.

He said: Oh, yes, that Finance Committee, we oil boys run it. We look out for oil.

So the farmers are smarter than the oil boys. They have moved in with the Senator from Montana and the Senator from North Dakota and all the rest of them.

I notice my distinguished ranking member. He put out a complaint to the WTO on agriculture. I have lost 61,000 textile jobs since he proposed NAFTA. He didn't ask the WTO about the special provisions for textiles. But he wants to petition. He immediately becomes alert. I have had to fight agriculture, I have had to fight the oil boys, I have had to fight that Finance Committee to sober up this Congress and let us go to work on producing jobs.

The policy at this minute is to export jobs, eliminate jobs, get rid of all jobs--not just textile, not just hard manufacture, not just service jobs, not just high-tech jobs, but all jobs, except politicians and the press. If we started importing politicians and press, I believe we would finally stop, look, and listen, and we would begin to understand the problem.

We have to struggle in order to debate trade as a result. It is easy to fix the Finance Committee--and they are fixed. They get their little amendments in there, and everything else like that. I am ready to vote for the Chile trade agreement. I have been saying that for 5 years, except they put on immigration.

You didn't, but you didn't knock it off. They had a vote 3 years ago on the H-1B visas, with that Silicon Valley crowd. They wanted to get all the Indians and Chinese cheaper, and bring them in to take American jobs. The vote was 99 to 1. I was the one against that immigration. I am against this immigration, and if you didn't have fast track, Mr. President, I could put up a little amendment, like any Senator, and we would have the normal process, and we would have an up- or-down vote, and I probably could pass it. I notice, on the other side of the aisle, some Republican colleagues are concerned about the immigration provision. Chile is better than us. Chile has a free market economy; they have labor laws; they have environmental laws; they have a respected judiciary; they have a balanced budget.

Even when they brought up NAFTA, I said, why not Australia? They are the best friend we have; they immediately supported us in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Vietnam, and in Korea--the best friend we have and we don't have a free trade agreement with them.

Now they want us to have a free trade agreement with a corporate state, Singapore. I said long ago I could compete with any company in Japan, but I could not compete with the country of Japan. So here I am being asked to give the country, which is really a corporate State, free trade status. The government of Singapore owns the port; shipping and logistics; property; the airlines, telecom, media, banking, and financing services industries; powers, utilities, technology, engineering, and the rail.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this list printed in the Record.

Mr. President, that is a corporate state. There isn't any question that what we have here is a loading dock, a veritable loading dock from Indonesia. Let me read this. Here is a headline:

Officials tout manufacturing services benefits from U.S.-

Singapore FTA.

U.S. Ambassador to Singapore Frank Lavin this week said the

greatest economic benefits to U.S. companies from the

recently-concluded U.S.-Singapore free trade agreement would

come in the areas of financial services, intellectual

property and manufacturing in the electronics sector.

Lavin said that in the long run, the ``most significant

aspect of this FTA'' could be provisions allowing products

assembled in the two Indonesian out-islands to be counted as

Singaporean in origin for the purposes of the FTA. That would

allow U.S. electronics manufacturers to take advantage of low

wage rates on those islands to assemble components from

Singapore into electronic products that can enter the U.S.

duty free, Lavin said.

Mr. President, where are we? Here we are trying to create jobs, and our good friend, Don Evans, the Secretary of Commerce, is running all over, jobs and growth, jobs and growth, jobs and growth, and we will give you a tax cut, jobs and growth as if that's going to help.

My distinguished friend on the House side--the smartest fellow perhaps in the Congress is John Spratt from South Carolina, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He voted for NAFTA. I said, John, for Heaven's sake how could you? And he said he had a promise that we can get 500 additional Customs agents. He said we need them badly, and he was right. We needed them badly.

We never got the 500 Customs agents. They keep cutting that budget particularly. They need help. In Charleston, we have to lend the local sheriff's sniffing dog to the Customs agents. My office is in the Customs building. I keep up with them and I know what is going on down there.

Mauritius, the little island off the coast of Africa, was inundating us with imported textiles, but they didn't have a textile plant. It was all made in China, and coming through Africa to South Carolina. These transshipments, Customs people will tell you, are to the tune of $5 billion. When you go to them and ask them, wait a minute, can't you enforce the law, they say: Senator, you want me to enforce the law now on terrorism or textiles? I said: Heavens, no, on terrorism. Do you want me to enforce the law on drugs or textiles? Oh, no, I want you to enforce the law on drugs.

So we have lost 61,000 textile jobs, and who is leading the way? The Department of State is leading the way in Singapore. I hate to say that about Singapore because I have visited there and I have the greatest respect for anybody in the Far East, specifically the former Prime Minister, Le Quan Yu.

As a young Senator, in the early 1970s, I went there and Senator Mansfield, the majority leader, said: Fritz, you have to call on him. He is the wise man of the East. I had the most interesting conversation just the year before last. I called on him again, with the distinguished chairman of the then Intelligence Committee, Senator Shelby, because I wanted the Prime Minister to relate a particular observation he had made to me back then with respect to the defenses and the concerns we had in the Far East, which is another subject for debate. I was prepared to vote for Singapore. But we got fast track.

With fast track you cannot say anything; you cannot do anything. You have to disrupt the Senate, in the middle of the energy debate, to be heard. We have fast track on jobs in America. We fast track jobs offshore--that is what it is. If we did not have fast track, I could put up a little amendment to strike the provision in the Singapore agreement that they couldn't have transshipments from the Malaysian Islands. This will just open

the door for everything in the Malaysian Islands to come through Singapore. Listen to what the State Department ambassador said:

With fast track, you have to disrupt the orderliness of business around here.

I apologize to both leaders who have had a very difficult time getting business back on track today, but, Mr. President, I can tell you now, I do not apologize to anybody about the importance of this particular subject. It is not discussed, it is not debated, and it is not considered. It is fixed.

I know something about trial lawyers, and I have seen some fixed juries that I have had to go up against. If there has ever been a fixed jury, it is this U.S. Congress. And I do not speak in a partisan fashion. I remember NAFTA. We had that beat until President Clinton went out and picked up 23 votes. He gave a golf round here for this particular Congressman, a golf round there. Jake Pickle, the Congressman from Texas, my good friend, got a cultural center. Another Congressman down in Texas got two C-17s. Oh, yes, the White House has the power. I do not speak loosely or lightly. I speak authoritatively. It has been reported in the press. They fixed the vote.

This vote was already fixed, unbeknownst to the members of the Finance Committee, so that when the treaties got here, they found this hidden provision on immigration and we cannot vote on it.

Finally, they put in a provision with respect to the transshipments to Singapore, and we cannot amend it. So the Senator from South Carolina under fast track is forbidden from voting his will with respect to these particular trade agreements.

I am really worried. I just mentioned to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia about production in this country. I go right back to Morita. We were talking about manufacturing. That has been the strength of Japan. It is now the unquestioned strength of China. We think we are strong. We passed a resolution in the United Nations at the end of the eighties for the General Assembly to have hearings on human rights in China. China went around us, to the leadership in Africa, in the Philippines, in Malaysia, in Australia, and in New Zealand. They picked up the votes, and we never had a hearing on human rights, even though we had it adopted in that particular committee.

One can say under domestic politics, it's the economy, stupid; one can say under foreign policy, it's the economy, stupid, because it is the economic strength of our Nation that is in question here.

I just finished reading a book, ``An Army at Dawn'' by Rick Atkinson. He reminded me of the strength we had in World War II and how we really won that war. I have been on several panels, having been a 3-year veteran starting out in Africa and ending up on V-E Day in Austria. As much as anyone, Rosie the Riveter won that war. I hope in this big ceremony they have for World War II that they will have a statue for Rosie the Riveter because I can tell you right now, it was the American production that won that war. As has been said, we did not defeat the Germans in North Africa, we overwhelmed them because we had that kind of production.

As I said earlier, at the end of World War II, we had 40 percent of our workforce in manufacturing, in production. As of yesterday afternoon, my check showed it was 11.2 percent, and we are going to get new figures on Friday, and probably it will be down some more. For the last 3 years the manufacturing strength and economy of the United States has diminished.

What happens is, we have 10 percent of the people producing and we have 90 percent of the people eating and talking about it. That is not a country. Let's not run around here about energy, and run around here about judges, and run around here about supplemental bills, and whatever else. Let's sober up and start rebuilding this country, rebuilding jobs, and quit exporting them. Let's put a tourniquet on this outflow hemorrhage of jobs to any and everywhere but the United States.

We have a 6.5 percent unemployment rate. The real unemployment rate is not just the 6.5 percent.

Mr. President, there are those who have not applied, so it is a real unemployment rate of some 10 percent.

My colleagues can see why I am worried when we see ``The Jobless and Hopeless May Quit the Labor Force.'' That is how we get to 10 percent. This is another Times article dated April 26.

Mr. President, if you think I am worried, let's go to Mort Zuckerman, the editor in chief of U.S. News and World Report. I quote:

The statistics are enough to make an incumbent assume the

fetal position: 2.7 million fewer private-sector jobs than

two years ago; the longest decline (32 months) in industrial

employment since the Great Depression: the longest continuous

decline in jobs in more than 50 years. Making matters worse,

the stock market has been off by double digits for three

years in a row. That's the first time that happened since the

1930s. The markets' plunge wiped out over $5 trillion in

value, including the retirement savings of millions of

Americans.

As if all that were not enough, the $5.6 trillion Federal

surplus we saw during the 1990s has been turned upside down

into an estimated $4 trillion deficit. Business activity is

as weak as it has ever been outside of a recession, and we do

not know whether this signals the onset of another recession,

the dreaded double dip.

That is Mort Zuckerman.

Some might say, Hollings, you are all wound up about Texas. I am not wound up about Texas. I am wound up about the country. We are in the worst shape I have ever seen, and they are running around here with tax cuts for jobs and growth. We have lost 2 million jobs since we passed the tax cut. We have lost 2.7 million since President Bush has taken office, according to Mr. Zuckerman.

The Wall Street Journal on July 21: ``Laid Off Factory Workers Find Jobs Are Drying Up For Good.''

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

I picked up my August 4 issue of Time magazine: ``Where The Good Jobs Are Going. Forget Sweatshops. U.S. companies are now shifting high-wage work overseas, especially to India.''

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

What happens is that when we used to argue for manufacturing jobs, they said, oh, don't worry, the service economy will produce jobs. Then when the service economy was leaving, they said high tech, will be the motor of growth. Then there was Y2K, that was to be the next motor of growth.

The high-tech jobs are gone. The service jobs are gone. As they told England at the end of World War II, do not worry, instead of a nation of bronze, you are going to be a nation of brains; instead of providing products, you are going to provide services; instead of creating wealth, you are going to handle it and be a financial center.

Of course, England has gone to economic hell in a hand basket. Downtown London is an amusement park. Let's not go that way. We have to produce.

As they crown the queens and bring out the kings and everything else of that kind, we are in a position where we do not make anything anymore. For example, footwear, 83.6 percent of our shoes are imported; 70 percent of our clothing is imported.

Ceramic household articles, 87 percent is gone; cooking and kitchen- ware, gone. And I can read on and on, right on down the line.

I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

We do not make anything anymore. We are just jabbering to each other. We are not producing.

The Secretary of Commerce is burdened with the duty--and the current occupant of the chair would be interested in this--of listing some 500 critical articles to our national security for defense purposes. We have a $5 billion deficit in the balance of trade. We had to wait 5 months before we went into Desert Storm to get mainframes from the Japanese. Now we have to go to other countries before we can go to war. We do not make those things anymore. We have an advanced technology of a $2 billion a month deficit in the balance of trade, over $24 billion a year, in advanced technology.

The Japanese have given up. They moved their advanced technology and research to Shanghai. The most modern automotive research is in downtown Shanghai. General Motors put it there. We can go right on down the list. The Chinese are saying before anyone can come with factories, they have to bring their research.

The technology community of the United States is concerned about our technological capability. We do not have as many Americans engineers as there are in China. We maintain our security by a superiority of technology, and we are draining the tub of technology just as fast as we can. Yet in this Chamber, we want to talk about an Energy bill, want to talk about a judge--don't we want to talk about trade? Put fast track on the Energy bill. Why not? Unless, by gosh, we get serious and start talking about jobs in America, the economic strength, the industrial backbone of this Nation.

Tax cuts loses jobs. Free trade loses jobs. We have a race to the bottom to Mexico. In South Carolina we have lost 61,000 jobs-- incidentally, we were supposed to get 200,000 jobs in America by signing NAFTA. That is what NAFTA was going to create for us. Nationally, we have lost 450,000 jobs to Mexico, but not for long because those same Mexican jobs formerly in America are now going to China.

It is different than what Henry Ford said. Henry Ford said, I want the man making that automobile to be able to buy it. He produced a minimum wage and he produced health benefits. So we built up middle America. Now, instead, with a trade policy of free trade, like monkeys on a string, there is no such thing as free trade. That is an oxymoron. Trade is something for something. If it is free, it is a gift. But with that particular policy, we have to race to the bottom in the United States of America.

I have an article from the New York Times, July 20, that I wanted to read, which points out our tremendous difficulty. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Of particular significance, the article quotes Steven Roach, the chief economist of Morgan Stanley. He finds that China's total exports have tripled since 1994, that 65 percent of the $244 billion increase comes from foreign companies in China, most of them United States.

Then I want you to listen to this economist about the economy, Mr. Mark M. Xanely. Before I quote him, let me say I am not an economist but I finally found one that is going to correct Alan Greenspan, because Mr. Greenspan is looking to consumer demand.

But before you can have consumer demand, you have to have consumers. Before you have consumers, you have to have producers. Before you have producers, you have to have jobs. Here is what he says:

For starters, the forecasters seemed not to grasp how much

the American economy has deviated from the standard business

cycle and the standard cures. A major reason for the

deviation is the mobility of American companies, particularly

the ease with which they now shift operations to China and

India. The wholesale movement of jobs and production overseas

is handcuffing the recovery.

Why do they have a jobless recovery? Because the economy of the United States is handcuffed with this silly cutting of the taxes, jobs and growth, jobs and growth, free trade, free trade, free trade.

Maybe it is not jobless growth, it is just jobless in the United States. This tax incentive, this stimulation is not going to create jobs in downtown Nashville, TN. The jobs will be in Shanghai, China. If you are in Nashville, TN, and you get a good fat tax break, the question arises, should you build the plant in Nashville? No, your competition has gone to China. If you are going to meet the competition, you are going to have to put that new plant, use that tax break, that stimulation--not to invest in the United States but to invest in China.

We are missing the point of history when everyone talks of this free trade nonsense. I remind them of Alexander Hamilton, a good Republican. Some of them want to replace him with the inventor of voodoo I, Ronald Reagan, on the $10 bill. You got some crazy things going on in this town. Imagine putting Ronald Reagan on the $10 bill rather than Alexander Hamilton--one of the greatest of the great. Hamilton not only helped with the Constitution, not only helped Madison with the Federalist Papers, but created a ``Report on Manufacturers.'' I have it right here.

What happened was the fledgling colony had just won its freedom when the British corresponded with us back in New York, because that is where the Capitol was at the time. They said what you ought to do back in the colonies since you won your freedom, was to trade with us what you produce best and we will trade back with you what we produce best. The doctrine was David Ricardo's, the economic doctrine of comparative advantage. It was Alexander Hamilton who won out. He even persuaded Madison, who voted for it.

He issued the ``Report on Manufacturers.'' It is too long to include in the Record. The original copy is at the Library of Congress. It can be expressed in one expression: Hamilton told the British to bug off. We are not going to remain your colony, shipping to you our agriculture, our foodstuffs, our rice, our cotton, our indigo, our coal, our iron ore. We are not going to remain a colony; no, we will become a nation state.

The first bill to ever pass Congress was for the seal of the United States--but the second bill on July 4, 1789, that passed this Congress was protectionism, a tariff bill of 50 percent on 60 articles.

We built this country over a 160-year-period with protectionism. I will never forget, every time they would tell me: Senator, you are nothing but a protectionist.

I am for free trade, free trade. The opponents do not know what the heck they are talking about. I feel sorry for them. Protectionism built the country. We did not even have the income tax until 1913. We built it on tariffs.

After Hamilton came Lincoln. People told Lincoln that to build the transcontinental rail we ought to get steel from England. The father of the Republican Party said: No, no. We are going to build our own steel mills and when we get through we will not only have the rail equipment, we will have our steel production.

Then Roosevelt in the depth of the Depression protected agriculture. People do not think I know anything about farming. But I get the farm vote every time I run. I love campaigning out in Iowa. I can tell you right now Roosevelt protected agriculture. And Eisenhower protected oil in the 1950s with quotas. We built the country with protectionism.

I will never forget when we had to have President Reagan's second inauguration right out here in the Rotunda. He raised his hand and he said, ``preserve, protect and defend.'' Then we came back here and we debated something on trade. I said something about protection and the majority jumped all over me: You are a protectionist, protectionist.

We have the Army to protect us when the enemy is out. We have Social Security to protect us from old age. We have Medicare to protect us from ill health. We have environmental laws, clean air and clean water, to protect the environment. The fundamental foundation of government is to protect.

Let's say you wanted to start an Alexander Manufacture Company. But before you can open Alexander Manufacture, you have to have a minimum wage. You have to have clean air; you have to have clean water; you have to have Social Security; you have to have Medicare; you have to have Medicaid; you have to have safe machinery; you have to have a safe working place; you

have OSHA coming around looking at you; you have to have plant closing notice; you have to have parental leave. I could go on and on. Or you can open a plant in China for 60 cents an hour, and have none of that. So companies go to China.

I will never forget, I had a friend who organized his own company out in California. I saw where he was very successful and I said: I helped you. I got your water and sewer lines when you came to South Carolina, when you had an expansion. I want you to give us that plant in South Carolina.

He said: I don't build anything in the United States. He said: I do it in China. I got research, I got sales--for 10 percent of the costs.

He did not say this but I know it: They build the factory. They provide the employment. They give people a year-to-year contract. They don't have to worry about the cycle that the economists talk about. If the cycle goes down, they do not have to renew the contract next year. They cannot lose. We are in one dickens of a fix.

I was reading the book ``Theodore Rex,'' the patron saint of my Republican friends. He is one of my heroes, too. In the book, on page 20, let me read at the turn of the century what we really had was protectionism.

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 consume only 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 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

world markets. Current advertisements in British magazines

gave the impression that the typical Englishman waked 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, 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,

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 into

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 deemed to replace London as

the world's financial center.

Mr. President, you can see exactly what happened. We built it up. At the end of World War II, my dear friends, we had the only economy. In order to prosper, we had to spread prosperity. The way we did that was very sanguine: the Marshall plan. And it worked. We sent over money, 80-some billion in today's dollars. We sent over the equipment, the finest machine tools, automotive equipment and otherwise. We sent over the expertise, and we rebuilt Europe, we rebuilt the Pacific rim, and capitalism defeated communism. It worked.

Our trouble is it worked too well for these eager-beaver manufacturers. I remember them well because I have been in this thing, now, for 50-some years. I can see them--Oh, I get jet lag; I hate to go; oh, man, I don't want to go; and everything else of that kind.

No more, not with the computer, not with the Internet. You can send some young, aggressive executive to Shanghai to run your plant. You can set it up on your computer. You can see what is happening daily. You can be in touch on the Internet. You can run it from the 32nd floor on Sixth Avenue in New York and, man, you have it made. And they are all doing it.

So what happened with the Marshall plan? We not only spread that prosperity but we really taught these people a bad lesson because they don't think about the country. You know, you and I are supposed to think about the country. They are supposed to think about profits. They do not have a duty.

Of course, being Americans, you would think they would be a little bit more patriotic. Their organizations are against us. Now who is the enemy? in other words.

The toast of the town, Jack Welsh of GE, he believed in squeezing the lemon.

This says:

One of General Electric's CEO's, Jack Welsh's favorite

phrase is ``squeeze the lemon'' for wringing out the cost. To

help them meet the stiff goals, several of GE's business

units, including aircraft engines, power systems, industrial

systems, have been prodding suppliers to move to low-cost

Mexico where the industrial giant already employs 30,000.

That was 4 years ago.

GE even puts on supplier migration conferences to help them

make the leap.

He goes on:

Welsh's widely admired status in corporate America has lent

legitimacy to a model of business success that is built on

job and wage cuts.

This is Business Week. This is the bible of the business community, the weekly bible. Here it is, and I am quoting:

The internal report, a copy of which Business Week

obtained, says: ``GE set the tone early and succinctly:

`Migrate or be out of business; not a matter of if, just

when'. This is not a seminar just to provide information. We

expect you to move and move quickly.''

The followup: Even though GE's profits were up 80 percent at that particular time, they wanted more. You know, they are not just Jesse Jackson in civil rights. This is Jack Welsh in Business Leadership: I want it all. My time has come. I want it all.

So the 80 percent didn't suit him. But you don't jump on poor Jack; he has gone now, and he has had other troubles. Let's go to last month. General Motors and Ford: Automotive News.

I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. President, just this last month:

Ford Motor Company and General Motors are pressuring their

North American suppliers to great migration in China.

Embroiled in a price war with their foreign rivals, Ford and

GM have delivered an ultimatum. Suppliers must match a world

price that is increasingly set in China, or they must build

factories in China.

How do you like that? That is not textiles, that is the automotive backbone of the United States of America. I voted for the Chrysler bailout, so now Daimler can own them. The foreigners own all the foodstuffs. They are going to have all the banks. Now they are going to have all the automobile business.

I wish Don Evans was up in Michigan. He would tell them you get a tax cut, you get $300. What are you going to do? We are going to have growth, growth, and jobs.

Here, within the week, the Automotive News says you have to go to China and you are going to lose 900,000 industrial jobs.

Go up into Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois to what I call the rust belt. The automotive parts makers are gone. By 2010, Ford expects its purchases of parts from China to rise to $10 billion. Last year, Ford's worldwide purchases of Chinese components was less than $100 million.

I quote further:

Suppliers who do not want to migrate to China are feeling

the heat. Consider the plight of Wescast Industries. Wescast

controls 70 percent of the Big Three's exhaust manifold

business in North America.

Ford told Wescast this year that it would transfer $50

million of its purchases from Wescast to Chinese factories,

according to the industry source.

Don't give me the service economy. I know about it. My light bill in Charleston, SC, is administered in Bangalore India. My insurance policy is administered in Dublin, Ireland. That is the service economy. Here is the automotive, hard machine tools industry.

I quote further:

For manufacturers of labor-intensive components, China is

an attractive location. According to the Chinese Government

data, manufacturers in Shanghai typically pay workers $1 an

hour, plus 42 cents an hour in benefits. Factories in rural

areas generally pay wages of 60 cents an hour.

That is significantly lower than pay in Mexico which ranges

from $2 to $2.50 an hour, including wages and benefits. Here

is the

poor Senator from South Carolina fussing about 61,000 textile

jobs lost to Mexico. But we find now that the Mexican jobs

they got from South Carolina are now on the way to 60 cents

an hour with no benefits in the rural areas of China. It is

beg thy neighbor; a race to the bottom. That is the trade

policy. That is the job policy. That is the economic policy.

Don't worry about energy policy.

Heavens above, why can't we catch Kenny Boy? I raised the question at that particular time when Larry Thompson became Deputy Attorney General. He is in charge of corporate corruption enforcement and violations enforcement. Before he came to Justice, he worked in a law firm in Atlanta. His firm was representing who? Kenny Boy Lay, of Enron. So I raised the question of a conflict of interest. What did he say? Oh, he didn't work on that particular client. He didn't have anything to do with it.

But I run a firm, and you make money, and I make money.

Come on. Here it is 2\1/2\ years later--and we have gotten everybody, including Martha Stewart--for one little stock thing. This fellow, Larry Thompson, wants to know what he should be indicted for. I can draw it up for him. We had the hearing in California before the Committee on Commerce, Space, Science and Transportation.

I turned to the witness, David Freeman. I said: Now, Mr. Freeman, you say all this happened with Enron, and Kenny Boy may not have known anything about it. I said: In fact, this morning on television I saw Mrs. Lay, his wife, and she said Kenny Boy didn't know anything about it.

Mr. Freeman said he was the architect. He knew all about it. He designed it. Take that testimony of the knowledge of what is going on, the Enron fraud of California, the wrecked economy, and they are now calling for a recall of the Governor because of the problems Enron helped create in that state.

I heard my distinguished colleague from Idaho. He said the economy went from a surplus to a deficit, and the Governor didn't do anything about it.

Let us transfer that to Washington. The President started off with a surplus. He said he even had a $1 trillion rainy day fund. The budget was $53 billion in the red when he talked on February 27, 2001 to the Congress. He talked about the $2.6 billion he would set aside for Social Security. He said there was $2 billion for the budget needs in defense security, and he said he had $1 trillion left over. He was in the red then. But we have Enron accounting here in Washington. If he has gone from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $4 trillion deficit, is anybody asking for the recall of the President? Of course not.

But they think that is par for the course out there in the political intramurals in California. Come on. What is going on.

It is not just GE. It is not just Ford. It is not just General Motors, or IBM--Big Blue.

This was last week, July 22, from the New York Times: ``IBM Explores Shift of Some Jobs Overseas.''

I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. President, a California IBM employee relations executive said:

. . . three million service jobs were expected to shift to

foreign workers . . . I.B.M. should move some of its jobs now

done in the United States, including software design jobs, to

India and other countries.

I could read on and on. But you can see it. It is in the Record.

You have Business Week, ``High-Tech in China.'' I don't want to include the magazine itself. But this is a quote from a Business Week article from earlier this year:

Is Your Job Next? A new round of globalization is sending

up-scale jobs offshore. They include chip design, engineer,

basic research, financial analysis. Can America lose these

jobs and still prosper?

You have not just Business Week but Fortune magazine from June of this year. Here is one of the executives quoted here:

``I've been in this business for over 20 years, and it's

the worst I've ever seen'', says David Hoffmann, CEO of DHR

International, a Chicago-based recruiting firm. ``Nothing

even comes close to this.''

. . . relocation of the jobs to offshore sites. Machines--

or low-wage foreigners--could just as easily do their work.

. . . shifting jobs to cheaper locales like India and the

Philippines. It's not just call centers anymore. Indian

radiologists now analyze CT scans and chest X-rays for

American patients in an office park in Bangalore, not far

from where Ernst & Young has 200 accountants processing U.S.

tax returns. E&Y's tax prep center in India is only 18 months

old . . . but the company already has plans to double its

size. Corporate America is quickly learning that a cubicle

can be replicated overseas as easily as a shop floor can.

Irwin Kellner, who is now at Hofstra University, was at Manufacturers Hanover. We have had him before committees of the Congress year in and year out. I quote:

``White-collar workers and college graduates are in a state

of shock,'' says Kellner. ``It appears these job losses are

permanent. They're not necessarily coming back when the

economy does.''

Mr. President, we are in deep trouble. We are into a real trade war. We are into a thing of national survival.

Let me see here. Quoting:

At the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business,

96 percent of grads in 2000 had an offer when they collected

their sheepskin. Only 72 percent of last year's grads were as

lucky--and this year isn't shaping up any better. Even at

Harvard the percentage of grads without job offers has gone

from 3 percent in 2000 to 13 percent now. For schools further

down the food chain, almost half the class will graduate

without even one offer.

Quoting further:

. . . in the past two or three years companies have turned

to India and the Philippines for much more sophisticated

tasks: financial analysis, software design, tax preparation,

even the creation of PowerPoint presentations.

Quoting still further:

And how cheap. Starting pay for an American accountant,

says Kline, typically ranges from $40,000 to $50,000 [in the

United States]. In Bangalore the accountants are paid less

than half that.

Another quote from the article:

. . . Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million service

jobs will move to countries like India, Russia, China, and

the Philippines.

The firm of A.T. Kearney talked about shifting 500,000 jobs, or 8 percent of the U.S. workforce, abroad by 2008.

I quote:

Any function that does not require face-to-face contact is

now perceived as a candidate for offshore relocation.

So, Mr. President, I could go on and on. But let me just say, we are in a struggle for our economic survival. I have talked to you that free trade is a loser. We are losing all those jobs. And who is the enemy? Not just General Motors, not just IBM. I say it authoritatively because I know who wants this losing trade bill--you can start with the National Association of Manufacturers. I got into a struggle with Victor Schwartz there in the 1970s, 25 years ago. But it is not only the National Association of Manufacturers. It is the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board--yes, my dear colleagues, the United States Chamber of Commerce.

The United States Chamber of Commerce is no longer interested in main street America. It was. I won U.S. Chamber of Commerce awards during my 1992 race. Bob Thompson of Greenville, SC, was the president. And I was the poster boy of the United States Chamber of Commerce. We had stopped labor law reform. We had eight cloture votes. My distinguished friend Russell Long was chairman of the Finance Committee, and we agreed the eighth vote would count. That would decide it. We would not go any further. And up until about 20 minutes before the vote, he had me beat. I heard from a friend that I might be able to persuade Ed Zorinsky of Nebraska, and I raced over to the fourth floor of the Russell Building. The rollcall had already been called. And I saw Ed coming down the hall, and I said: Ed, I need your help. And he said: I will help you, Fritz.

And we called that roll, and we won the eighth rollcall vote on cloture. This crowd gets steamed up over two or three cloture votes. So let's get to the record. I helped defeat an eighth cloture vote myself. And as a result, I was the poster boy of the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Now, Tom Donohue--a nice fellow, absolutely honest--I worked with him when he represented the truckers. He knows nothing about international trade, but he is going for the money. He is for tort reform. I never heard him mention a bit about tort reform when he represented the truckers. But now he is, by gosh, the expert on free trade, free trade.

When I ran in 1998, they put out pamphlets against me. They endorsed my opponent, even though I had been their poster boy. I had not changed my vote. I was the same way in trade in 1998 as I was in 1992. But you can see how this crowd is. They headed for the overseas barn. I can tell you that right now.

So you have the National Association of Manufacturers, you have the Business Roundtable, you have the Conference Board. You have the United States Chamber of Commerce. I have won about six of these National Federation of Independent Business small business awards, but now they are being taken over. The U.S. Chamber and the Business Roundtable have gotten hold of them and said: Oh, we are going to get you some writeoffs, some tax breaks, too. So they are for free trade now.

To increase consumer demand, you have to have consumers. In order to have consumers, you must first have producers. And in order to have producers, you have to have jobs. And we are losing them hand over fist.

I have been the author of five textile trade bills that have passed the Senate. Four of those bills have gone to the President of the United States. Four have been vetoed--vetoed. President

Carter vetoed one. President Reagan vetoed two. And President George Herbert Walker Bush vetoed the last one. And we came within two votes over on the House side of over turning the veto. We had a majority, but we did not have the two-thirds necessary to override.

The other enemy is the Retail Federation. They order so many hundred thousand dozen shirts, or whatever it is, from China. Then, if the market is good, and they run short, they call up New Jersey quick and get another hundred thousand dozen.

Now, what they get from New Jersey and what they get from China is not the same price. They get a much greater profit on the Chinese import than they do on the New Jersey shirt. I know because I got a New Jersey shirt on. Yes, sir, I believe in domestic production.

Years ago, I used to represent Pontiac folks, and a bunch of other automobile dealers. Once I bought a new car, and I was so careful to buy a domestic car; no foreign car. My neighbor said: Fritz, how much did you pay for this new Pontiac? I was looking at the sticker price, when I see on the sticker: FOB Montreal. I had bought a foreign car. I had bought a foreign car and didn't even know it. Pontiac had gone to Canada to make it because they saved $800 on the health bill on every car.

So you can understand, this has been going on for years. But we are draining the swamp. There aren't jobs left in America.

And you cannot find a hometown newspaper that has endorsed protectionist trade--I don't mind saying the word.

You have to protect your standard of living. We Republicans and Democrats, we say: Clean air, clean water, minimum wage, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closings, parental leave. If you put that requirement on manufacturers, you have to protect it. You can't just go over where they have none of those protections and 60 cents an hour.

The newspapers make a majority of their profit on retail advertising. So the retail federation and all the big stores call the main advertisers. They go down to the editors and they give them a handout. I have compared the editorials in different parts of the country. They give them the handout, and they write the editorial. Free trade, free trade--they think they are being wise.

Free trade loses jobs. We are losing the jobs right and left. But everyone is for free trade: the hometown newspaper, the Business Roundtable, the Conference Boards, the United States Chamber, the retailers, all of K Street. Have you ever had a K Street lawyer come here and ask you to vote against free trade? You can't find one.

You and I are paid to protect the jobs of America. We are not paid to make a profit. But come on, you can't find a K Street lawyer who wants to protect jobs.

In the Administration they think this is wonderful. They can open up the islands of Indonesia and transship through Singapore the electronic parts back into America from cheap labor. So they are all working against us.

It is not just President Bush. President Clinton was for free trade, free trade. He is the one who passed NAFTA. He was the one who was going to open up and create 200,000 jobs. He impoverished the State of South Carolina, I can tell you that. We have lost 61,000 textile jobs in my little State. Where we have a BMW plant, 3 years ago we had 3.2 percent unemployment. It is over 8 percent unemployment now.

Don't tell me about free trade, free trade. I have watched the outflow here. So you have the Government against us. Then if everyone is against us, who could be for us, asks the Good Book? Us. That is all I am trying to do, is wake my colleagues up to get out of this nonsense. I see the Senator from Wisconsin. I know the plants out there, too. I did work for them. I carpetbagged a few of those plants, too. I brought them to South Carolina.

But we have to move to rebuild America. We have to stop whining: I am for fair trade. I am for balancing the field, leveling the field.

That is all garbage. That is baloney, if I have ever heard it. We have to start and compete in the international economy. It is a trade war. It is very viable. It is very fair. It is very understandable. We have to get in there. Having rebuilt Europe and the Pacific rim, we have to, by gosh, get in there, and in order to remove a barrier, raise a barrier. Then remove them both, go by their rule book. We are Goody Two-shoes, and we want to set the good example like we have done for 50 some years. And we have lost our shirt in manufacturing.

We can go right to the tax law. I am going down the list now. We can go to the tax law that says if you manufacture overseas and keep your profit, you can build a new plant. You don't have to pay taxes on that profit. Or we can turn around and go along with Charlie Rangel on the House side--I have the bill in on the Senate side--and say if you manufacture and keep your jobs in America, you get a tax credit. If you go overseas, you lose. You get a tax increase.

That is what we ought to do. Make it so rather than trying to revive Europe and the Pacific rim, we have to revive the United States.

I am delighted to.

Certainly, it ought to be. That is our duty here in the Congress. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says not the President but the Congress of the United States shall regulate foreign commerce. But what have we done? We have got in a fix through the Finance Committee and Ways and Means. They got fast track. And I would like to vote for Chile because Chile has a free economy, a market-based economy, a revered judiciary, labor rights, environmental laws, and a balanced budget. But I can't vote with that immigration thing included. Under fast track, I can't amend. I can't debate. I can't discuss. I can't do anything.

Let me bring up a red herring that will excite everybody. I introduced it in January. I said: Good gosh, we are going to war, and we don't have a way to pay for it. We paid for the Revolutionary War with a property tax. That is the first property tax that passed in this country. We got to the Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln put on an estate tax and a dividend tax. And we were running around here talking about taking off the estate and dividend tax.

I said, come on, we paid for World War II. We paid for Korea. We paid for Vietnam. We paid for the gulf war. The Saudis did a good bit of that, as we all know.

I said, I am going to put in a value-added tax. Every industrialized country has a value-added tax. Why? Why do I want to do that? It is twofold: One, if I take and manufacture this desk in Washington, DC, I have to pay all the income, sales, corporate taxes. And when I ship it over to Paris, France, I add on a 17 percent VAT.

If I manufactured that same desk in Paris, France, when it leaves the port of La Havre to come to Washington, we rebate the 17 percent. And so it is a 17 percent advantage to manufacture in Paris rather than in Washington. I want to reconcile that differential immediately with a value-added tax. I want to pay for the war. That is the trouble this country is in.

Bill Clinton brought the budget deficit down. He put in an increase in tax. I voted to increase Social Security. I voted to increase the gasoline tax.

I voted to increase the top payer income tax. We voted also to cut spending, and we had an 8-year economic boom. And now we just had three quarters of recession in 2001, a bad economy all through 2002, and they kept blaming it on the war. The war in Iraq only costs $4 billion a month. That is $48 billion year, and when the President talked on February 27, he said: I have $1 trillion for unforeseen needs.

The tax cuts have wrecked the economy. Everybody knows it. They are

running around--jobs and growth, jobs and growth--like a bunch of children trying to sell that nonsense. So we ought to pay for the war, reconcile this trade differential and manufacturing differential. We ought to, by gosh, enforce our dumping laws. The competition is not for money or profit. The competition is for market share.

When the Japanese sell below cost in the United States and make it up in the domestic market in Tokyo, we have to enforce dumping laws. The special Trade Representative runs out to do that and says we are going to do away with the dumping laws. That is loss leaders.

I had an antitrust case and carried it to the Supreme Court on a loss leader. I know the law of loss leaders. That is what you have in international competition. There are a bunch of loss leaders and they keep taking over, even this year, a greater share of the American automobile market. So we have to enforce our dumping laws. We have to eliminate the Trade Commission. That is another gimmick put in by the Finance Committee.

The Finance Committee--when you have a dumping violation, you file it before the International Trade Administration. They investigate and make a finding. After they make a finding, they have a sweetheart deal. They kick it over to the International Trade Commission, and they never find injury. I can tell you they have two or three exceptions since I have been talking about it, but we can save $43 million and let the finding entity, the International Trade Administration, that gives the penalty on what is to be done. We can save money there.

We need more Customs agents, and we need a department of trade. We have the Department of Manufacturing in the Commerce Committee. We can gear up for the trade war. Don't worry about the Afghan war. I think we may have created more terrorists than we have gotten rid of. The jury is out in Iraq, as to whether or not we can work out the peace. I can tell we don't have any friends in downtown Baghdad. It is a shooting gallery. They are killing our soldiers every day.

What we have to do is get into this trade war and compete.

Now, finally, the administration says they are going to get up consumer confidence. They have passed three voodoo tax cuts. Of course, Ronald Reagan passed voodoo 1, and George Herbert Walker Bush is the one who called it voodoo. How are you going to cut your revenues and increase your revenues? You never do that. You will never find a government doing that. But come to Washington, and they know everything up here. So they are going to increase the consumer confidence with tax cuts they had in 2001, 2002, and already this year.

With those three tax cuts of over $3.1 trillion, here is the news that came out yesterday: the consumer confidence index dropped 7 points to 7.6 in July, a sharp and unexpected drop.

We have a $698 billion budget deficit projected for this year. It is already $503 billion.

(Mr. CRAPO assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, you can see the effects. You can see Wall Street is frozen. They are not going to invest when the interest rates are on the increase.

The Concord Coalition, headed up by former colleagues, Senator Kerrey, Senator Nunn, and Senator Rudman and now chaired by none other than a Republican, Pete Peterson, former Secretary of Commerce under President Nixon, released its report on fiscal responsibility. Overall, you have the Republican chairman of the Concord giving them an ``F.''

So there we are. We don't want to compete. We have a job policy in the U.S. Congress of actually eliminating jobs like gangbusters.

Our security is like a three-legged stool. We have the one leg of the values that we have as a nation. Everyone in the world--at least until Iraq--knew that we stood for human rights, individual freedom, and democracy. That second leg, military, is unquestioned. The third leg, economic, is fractured--intentionally so with the Marshall Plan. But we prevailed with capitalism over communism in the cold war. It worked.

But now we have taught corporate America a bad lesson, and in order to compete and make even greater profits, whether it is high-tech or service or hard manufacture, they are leaving the Nation in droves. We are sitting by talking about a little Energy bill or a judgeship.

The country is going to hell in an economic hand basket and we are the ones responsible under the Constitution and we are not doing anything about it.

I yield the floor.

The Amtrak board of directors is a seven-member body charged with making important corporate decisions for the National Passenger Rail Corporation. The board members are appointed by the President, and they each bring with them a certain background or expertise that benefits the National Passenger Rail Corporation and its executives.

The board members have a formidable responsibility to make sound decisions and investments that will successfully serve both the corporation and the Nation's rail passengers. At this critical juncture, when Amtrak is poised for either salvation or bankruptcy, the work of the board must be allowed to continue uninterrupted.

Yes, by September 24, the Amtrak board will lose its quorum and its ability to function unless it uses other avenues available under the law to continue its important role. That is why I am pleased to learn that the board is already exploring measures that can be taken under the corporate laws of the District of Columbia to continue to operate as a board even while it cannot achieve a quorum of members.

Mr. President, earlier this month, newlyweds Walt and Donyelle Wilkins from Greenville, SC, were on their way to their honeymoon, when the small plane they were on crashed into the ocean. Because of their quick action and disregard for personal safety, they saved the lives of two young children, also passengers on the plane. I rise to salute this couple, and to thank them for their true heroism.

Walt and Donyelle were married in Charleston two Saturdays ago. The day after the wedding the couple took off from Ft. Lauderdale, heading to the Bahamas, when the plane crashed into the open sea. After assisting others out of the sinking plane and distributing life jackets, Walt jumped into the rough sea without a life jacket and swam to others, assisting them in inflating their jackets, while Donyelle held an infant above the waves.

After the parents of the infant were located in the water the child was passed to them so that Walt and Donyelle could assist two small children whose mother had just drowned. Several of the surviving passengers decided to attempt to swim to the nearest land some six miles away. But Walt and Donyelle stayed with the young children, keeping their heads above the waters and calming them by singing ``Amazing Grace.'' Approximately 2 hours later, they were rescued by a Coast Guard helicopter.

The children are alive today because of the Wilkins' amazing grace under threats no one should ever have to face. I speak for all my colleagues in wishing the young couple a long and happy life together.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I will be delighted to read the amendment: On page 49, line 2, strike ``$150 million'' and insert ``$450 million''; and on page 66, line 9, strike ``$823,700,000'' and insert ``$523,700,000.''

What happens on page 49? We add $300 million to the port security provision to which everyone has attested that they support. When we asked Secretary Ridge about more money, in that they had not proposed anything in this particular Homeland Security bill, he said, well, that is in the critical infrastructure section. So that is where we take it from as an offset on page 66, line 9, strike the $823,700,000 and reduce it by $300 million.

This ought to be an easy amendment for everyone to support in that, No. 1, we all voted for way more money when we passed the authorization for port security the year before last. We had 100 votes, all Republicans and all Democrats. And then we had the urgent supplemental--incidentally, that authorized $4.2 billion. We are not talking in those terms at all.

Actually, the Coast Guard surveyed 47-some major ports--there are 362 ports and 5,000 facilities--but there are 47 port areas with which we really are concerned. In those port areas are some 500 different facilities. So at that particular time, we said to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, give us a study and find out exactly what is needed. He came up with a $7 billion figure at that particular time.

So we are not at the $7 billion that has already been requested and found needed by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, not the $4.2 billion authorized at the time we passed port security legislation and we actually provided $1.2 billion. We had an amendment for $1.2 billion. It was defeated in the urgent supplemental, but when we looked at the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the administration did not request anything under port security. When asked about it, they said that is in the critical facilities section, and that is why we take from the $823 million this necessary $300 million.

Why do I say it is necessary? Right to the point, the interim rule requires the submission of security plans by December of this year. I will limit my comments to the 47 port areas and not the 5,000. This is required by all 5,000, but like first responders I think we will all be around for quite some time before we get the first responders outfitted as they should be. But here we know of the threat, and of the 47 port areas, they are without any approved plan within 1 year from July 1. And they must have the plans submitted in 6 months' time because by next July 1, if they have not been approved, under the bill the Coast Guard has the authority to close the port.

What has happened is the ports have all gotten together. The captain of the port under the Coast Guard is the responsible official. He has had to get the Immigration Service. He has had to get the Customs Service. He has had to get the Drug Enforcement Service. He has had to get local law enforcement. He has had to get the local public facilities, port facilities. He has had to get the private port facilities. This young officer out of the Coast Guard has had to correlate it all, working together to get a master plan for the security of that port area, and submit it by the end of this year-- within 6 months time.

When he submits it, of course, the Coast Guard itself has to approve or disapprove the plans coming in from all over, from 362, but particularly these 47 ports, and they have to begin to implement them.

In terms of a major port in Houston, TX, Long Beach, CA, Seattle, WA,

Philadelphia, PA, we are talking sense now, we are not talking politics, if we think we need a little bit more in our area for port facilities. I am in pretty good shape where I am in Charleston, SC. Since they closed the Navy yard there, I suspect al-Qaida would be looking for a more ripe target. They would be looking at Philadelphia, for instance.

What could happen? We know Osama bin Laden, according to Lloyd's of London, has control of some 20 vessels. He actually owns some 10 vessels and he has control of an additional 10. So he has control of some 20 regular vessels, what you might call rust buckets. It was one of these that went into a port in Kenya 3 years.

What happened was that particular ship docked at the port in Kenya. The terrorist crews jumped off, went and blew up the American Embassy in Nairobi, and went over into Tanzania and Dar Es Salaam and blew up that embassy, got back on the ship and boarded, and we have not been able to find them since.

That tells me--and I used to represent the ports in South Carolina-- what we have is not just the ship but we have ship crews available to al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden can easily get three to four. He does not have to send them to flight school in Arizona or send them down to Florida. He has them. They are experienced tanker crews. These three or four experienced tanker crews could work their way into a good Exxon or Texaco or Unocol or other oil company, a Chevron tanker, come with that Shell tanker into the port of Philadelphia, up the Delaware River, and just before they reach port, the three or four could throw the captain over, take control of the ship, and ram it right into the tank farm, and blow it up.

Booz Allen Hamilton did a study; and if there was a major terrorist act at the ports, we would have to close down the eastern seaboard. The stock market would have to close. We are talking serious business. And here it is that we, as a public body, have set the responsibility with the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Homeland Security Department. We have said come up with plans and have them ready and approved by this time next year, but at least submit them and have them gone over with, starting in December of this year. That money is needed--not the $4.2 billion authorized. I don't know of any more critical thing.

I worked on Homeland Security with our distinguished chairman, Senator Cochran. Actually, I had the U.S. entry and exit program. That was under my Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State. I am totally familiar with the FBI, the Immigration Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and many of these particular customs. But this particular port thing is real because it is mammoth and it is a way to close down the economy for a year to 2 years on the east coast. There is no question. Go into Houston, TX, and you have ruined the south. We would have to start rationing. Go into Long Beach, CA, and you have closed down the west coast area.

I worked with all the committee members as best I could. I said there is no other place to find funds, other than what Secretary Ridge himself indicated when we asked why they didn't submit an amount for port security itself. He said it already is in the critical infrastructure facilities program. So we take that money out of there, and we get it an offset. Of course, working on the committee, that really takes us to some need that is denied in any other area. We can increase that amount. We will be working with an increased amount, hopefully, when we get to conference on Homeland Security.

As the distinguished chairman and ranking member know, we must have more money in Homeland Security. We must have more money in our little Commerce, Justice, State bill that has been cut $910 million, way below last year. We could not go into conference with our House friends and formulate a bill and take care of the FBI and all of the other agencies. Just yesterday, the FBI was increased in this year, $410 million on the House side. I believe if you proposed that amendment in the next 10 minutes on the floor of the Senate, it would receive an almost unanimous vote. We do not want to cut from the FBI that is enforcing laws against crime.

FBI Director Mueller is doing an excellent job fashioning domestic intelligence efforts. We never wanted to have that in America, particularly after the McCarthy days and the House un-American Activities Committee. We said, learn and study and make absolutely certain that we are not spying on each other and having a domestic intelligence service. Now, with the war on terrorism, we need it. That has to be funded.

This is for just a modest request of the billions and billions included for fighting the war on terror. The former Commandant of the Coast Guard and now the head of the Transportation Security Administration, Admiral Loy, is doing an outstanding job.

We had a debate within the committee to try to get a sufficient amount just for the transponder tower. An airplane cannot approach the coastline of the United States of America without us identifying it. We cannot do that with respect to shipping. We are trying our best to use some overhead satellites, but we need to put up the towers.

Once the towers are there, then we can require the vessels themselves to install the transponders.

As of this moment, we have to get these plans and we have to get them moving. The communities are moving. They are ready, willing, and able. They are submitting some of these plans already at the Coast Guard office in the Transportation Security Administration. But we do not have the money to follow through. This is an unfunded mandate of our own that we want to at least set aside this particular amount, not to solve all of the ports problems by any manner or means, not to solve all the docking facilities' problems. That would be impossible. You could not spend that amount of money in 1 year's time. But at least we will need these funds in fiscal year 2004 to follow through to get port security in America. The fiscal year begins in a couple of months time, on October 1. It is critical.

I yield the floor and I am glad to respond to any questions or comments anyone has.

Madam President, I appreciate the complimentary remarks but you can't any better describe the Senator's resistance and objection to the amendment other than as fanciful. He goes off into all of the committees. It is very interesting to hear him in opposition to this amendment say that we have five subcommittees. Each of us have five subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee. There is nothing new about that. Yes, that is what it is, the appropriations for the entire Government.

Here is some $29 to $30 billion we are expending for homeland security. I am talking about one particular section where they have facilities-based critical infrastructure. When asked, Secretary Ridge said: Well, that's the way it is. We are going to take care of it. We are going to take care of it. But when we received the budget, it was not taken care of.

I am not guessing with figures. The $300 million is just a minuscule part of the $1.7 billion request sitting on Admiral Loy's desk. I wish he would call up and get his staff to work and find out the facts.

We started off with $1.2 billion, and the ports came in reuqesting $1.7 billion. Well, it takes the Coast Guard and it takes the Transportation Security Administration some time to look over, in detail, these particular submissions of $1.7 billion. This amendment is just to get it started with $300 million.

To say that we would create an atmosphere of waste, that we would contribute to disarray, that we may be undermining the process--come on. What nonsense is that? Here we worked on this thing in a bipartisan fashion. We had 100 Senators--all Republicans and all Democrats-- approve $1.2 billion. The Coast Guard itself comes in and says, in order to meet the request, the needs for port security, it is going to be at least $7 billion.

They have on their desk, as I speak, $1.7 billion in requests. And he says, we don't have the information and that this might contribute to disarray. Come on. Disarray? It contributes to security. He said it would be undermining the process and contribute to insecurity. I never have heard such an argument in my life, when we have the actual facts and we minimized the request that we know is absolutely needed.

They can vote it down. We are not the Mother Superior Security around here. But I do have a conscience about this issue because I worked with all sides of the aisle. I worked intimately with Admiral Loy. I work now with Admiral Collins of the Coast Guard. I have been to the ports. We have had, under the leadership of Senator Breaux of Louisiana, field hearings to all of these particular ports and everything else.

We don't really begin to get true security but this is just the minimal requirement to get the process out and working. He says they are wisely, thoughtfully disbursing. That is exactly what we are doing, trying to get the disbursement of the funds there. They are hanging back because they can't get the studies made, and everything else, and can't go out and examine the ports, and what have you. They don't have all of the personnel. They don't even have the towers up for the transponders.

You could talk for the rest of the afternoon about the needs of the Coast Guard. They are the best agency we have in the Government for the money we spend. I can tell you that right now. The Coast Guard is outstanding. They have said: Our appraisal now is for at least $7 billion. And that was last year at this time. They have requests on their desks for $1.7 billion and all we are asking for is $300 million.

We hear how we all have five subcommittees and every subcommittee wants more money, and this is just asking for more money because we have a subcommittee. Come on. That is not responsive at all.

I hope the Members will act in the security of the ports of the United States and approve this particular amendment.

Madam President, the statement has been made by the chairman that the administration opposes this. I wonder. I will go right to the text of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia on Iraq. A few comments are necessary when you say the administration was saying various things to get us into the war in Iraq. Now we find out not just one swallow makes a spring, but one 13-word sentence got us into the war. We heard that in 45 minutes Iraq could launch a chemical attack. We heard about the aluminum tubes.

We had the distinguished Secretary of State at the U.N. with photos pointing out that there they are, can't you see? You knew he was a judicious and careful witness up there. You had--well, of all things, not just the yellowcake from Niger in Africa, you had the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, say just days before the attack in Iraq that they had indeed reconstituted nuclear. And I worked with the Presiding Officer in Transportation, which I will get to in a minute, when she was Secretary of Transportation.

But getting right to this particular point, I didn't have any fear about any imminent attack on the United States or maybe an imminent attack in the Mideast, on our friend Israel. Israel doesn't have time to play games. If you have ever been there--the numerous times I have been there, with an air alert, within minutes the planes alerted in Israel are found over Jordan, or over the Mediterranean, or over Syria. They are gone. They have left the country. The country is in a sense, a sort of aircraft carrier. So they cannot play around with conferences.

There isn't any question on the credibility of the so-called statements that the administration said, the administration requested, the administration demanded, the administration vetoed. I think the poor President has a hard time getting along with his staff on the information he gets. First he said the Director of the CIA was responsible; he had him apologize. Now he says a White House national security staffer is responsible; he had him apologize. We will pick up the morning paper and find it was somebody else. But he put the picture on his own White House Internet site of him going over every line, word for word, in the State of the Union, with his own hands. I wish I had that in my pocket. I would submit it for the Record so everyone could see it.

So don't give me this about the administration. The best of the administration wants this. The head of the Transportation Security Administration cleaned that agency up, frankly, after we instituted it. We had a rather inept administrator there at first, and I speak in praise of Admiral Loy, because he came over from retirement as commandant of the Coast Guard. I have been with him on hearings and on field trips. As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia pointed out, there is over a billion-some in requests by him. This would only get us a little of what he needs.

Who speaks for the administration on homeland security? Not those amateurs in the White House who, in tomorrow's paper, will apologize for whatever they said, or whatever they forgot, or whatever they didn't know. We know. We have studied this thing. We tried and we got, in a bipartisan fashion, 100 senatorial votes, Republican and Democrat, $4.2 billion. Since that time, Admiral Loy said the need is going to exceed $7 billion. Since that time, on his desk are requests for $1.7 billion. Obviously, he is not going to respond to every one of the requests. He requested $1.2 billion. These are facts.

So when the distinguished chairman says you have to wisely, thoughtfully disburse, that is exactly what we are doing--wisely, thoughtfully, and in a minimal fashion, as we are not getting what factually has been requested. So I dissent from the expression that we don't have the information. I resist the idea that this particular amendment may undermine the process and contribute to the insecurity, when we backed up with needs and everything else around here. I have been working since 9/11 on trying to provide for the

particular needs of the ports--and these are the major needs of the major ports.

When you talk about a member of a subcommittee and every member wants more money for their subcommittee, this is not that at all. This is something we worked on in the Transportation Committee.

As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, when she was the Secretary of Transportation, we worked in a bipartisan fashion on the Reagan National Airport. We did a lot of good things.

I have worked in a bipartisan fashion. I have not worked around here on port security because we just think, since I am a member of a subcommittee, I want to put in an amendment and get a little bit more money. We are behind the curve on port security in this country, and I am worried about it, in all candor.

This is a minimal amendment. I know the staff, and everyone else, including the Department, want more. They have said so and have requested more. I have requested $300 million to be added to the amounts.

I hope folks will in a bipartisan fashion support this amendment so we can get the Transportation Security Administration and Admiral Loy and the Coast Guard some financial support to get these funds administered and disbursed and get security in the ports of America. I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, my understanding is that there is a first-degree amendment by my distinguished ranking member, the former chairman of our Budget Committee, that I very vigorously favor with respect to the National Guard and the Reserve. I know that the Reserve officers at the C-17 unit under General Black at the field in Charleston, SC, were alerted on September 12, the day after 9/11, and they are still flying. Now, that is quite a burden. Many are straining to make their rent payments and their house payments.

When we had a hearing about 2 months ago and the distinguished Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, came, after listening, I said: Mr. Secretary, what you need is not a money supplement but a manpower supplement.

In that vein, I want to say as much as I can in support of my chairman, but I deter for the simple reason that the money is not in this particular Defense appropriations bill for Iraq, and there is a good reason for it.

Now, there should be gratitude for little things that happen. I first express my gratitude to the distinguished editor and publisher of the Washington Post, Mr. Donald Graham. I complained in an op-ed piece some weeks ago that they were not covering the budget amounts and that we ought to have truth in budgeting, and because we have come to the highest budget deficit in the history of the U.S. Government, that ought to be covered as front-page news. Today it is. We have moved from page A4 to page 1. I have my copy of today's Post, and front and center on page one are the articles:

``The Budget Deficit May Surpass $450 Billion'' and ``Budget Woes Trickle Down.''

I happened to be a State Governor, and I received a AAA rating from Standard&Poors and Moody's, and we have maintained that in South Carolina. We have to have a balanced budget.

I coauthored Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which happened under President Reagan. I have been in the vineyard. But the headline here states: ``The Budget Deficit May Surpass $450 Billion,'' and I want to thank Jonathan Weisman, the author of this particular story, and Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, for including this.

I said we just move up in inches. Let's look at the Mid-Session Review of the Budget of the United States Government by the Office of Management and Budget, the Executive Office of the President, signed by Joshua Bolton, Director, as of yesterday, July 15.

We find out why Mitch left town. Mitch Daniels is gone. Now we know why Ari Fleischer is gone. Both Mitch and Ari skipped town. Why? Just look at this document. They have no tricky answers for this one. This is the Administration's writing, and I am reading on page 1 their statement:

The deficit for 2003 is now estimated at $455 billion.

That is on page 1. One learns, after years up here, how to read these things. So on page 57, you get to the actual deficit, how much we get in revenues and how much we spend, and if spending exceeds revenues, then there is a deficit. If we look at table 20 on page 57, we will find the total gross Federal debt for 2002 was $6,198,000,000,000 and it will go up to $6,896,000,000,000 this year. That is why Mitch left town. Compute that and the deficit will not be an estimated $455 billion; it will be $698 billion. They estimate a $698 billion deficit for the year 2003.

But, wait, we have actual numbers as of this minute. As of July 14th, yesterday, the Treasury says the debt to the penny is $478 billion. So it is already more than the $455 billion they say it will be at the end of the year. I guess that is why Paul O'Neill left town, too. They are all leaving if they have anything to do with fiscal matters, and so now we have John Snow as Treasury Secretary.

What did President Bush say when he came to town? I have the exact quote, taken from his first address to a Joint Session of Congress in 2001:

To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors

are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all

$2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social

Security and for Social Security alone.

Well, he is spending the trust funds when he says on page 1, $455 billion. He is spending $163 billion of Social Security, plus another $30 billion of other trust funds.

What we have is a Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, the military retirees trust fund, the civil service retirees trust fund, the highway, the airport, the railway trust fund, the unemployment compensation trust fund--which will be drained, incidentally; we will have to fill that back up. We are spending it on any and everything but unemployment. This is Enron bookkeeping. We are spending Social Security moneys on any and everything but Social Security.

But the President, when he was speaking when he was speaking right after he took office in February 2001, said that wasn't all he was going to do.

He goes on and says:

We should approach our Nation's budget as any prudent

family would, with a contingency fund for emergencies. We are

going to have a contingency fund for emergencies or

additional spending needs. My budget sets aside $1 trillion

over 10 years for additional needs. That is 1 trillion

additional reasons you can feel comfortable supporting this

budget.

Now, Iraq and Afghanistan and the whole kit and kaboodle, put in Liberia and whatever country he wants to run to, we have 14 peacekeeping missions, then we have Kuwait, then we have Afghanistan, then we have Iraq, and now he is looking for another country to send the military to. We don't have enough National Guard or anybody in uniform to get to that country, I can tell you that right now.

But that has not cost $1 trillion. It has not cost $1 trillion. But he had $1 trillion set aside before September 11, so why can't he pay for this out of that?

Now, let's find out what he said last year in the State of the Union:

Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-

term so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a

fiscally responsible manner.

Well, all the spending bills were signed by President George W. Bush. So I take it since that was his admonition to us, he must have had that in mind for himself. And he signed only fiscally responsible budgets.

He also said:

The way out of this recession, the way to create jobs, is

to grow the economy by encouraging investment in factories

and equipment and by speeding up tax relief so people will

have more money to spend.

There were plenty of tax cuts, but he hasn't created any jobs.

One more--let's go to January of 2003, to what he said in his State of the Union then:

We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to

other presidents and other generations. Tax relief will help

our economy immediately.

Immediately? He got yet more tax cuts, and we still have 3.8 million Americans, the highest in 20 years, receiving unemployment compensation. There have been over 3 million Americans who have lost their jobs since President Bush took office.

I think of President Clinton. He created 20 million jobs, and President Bush already has lost 3 million. Where is the immediacy that his budget is going to take care of?

We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses,

other presidents and other generations.

That is exactly what we are doing--$698 billion in bills. Mark it down. Poor Mitch, he got free. Mitch Daniels escaped to Indiana. He did not want to come before the Budget Committee and answer any questions, I tell you, and Ari Fleischer says: This is enough for me, I'm gone. Everybody is going to run--out of Washington.

I have worked with the Senator from West Virginia and my chairman, Senator Inouye, who is most responsible on budget matters and we balanced the budget. They want to forget that. Eight years under William Jefferson Clinton and we came from a $403 billion deficit in 1992 to finally getting in the black. We gradually got it down. I voted to increase taxes on Social Security. I voted to increase gas taxes. I voted for all of those tax increases and we acted responsibly.

George W. Bush comes to town and what does he do? He says: Tomorrow, don't worry about it. He has some fellow hidden out in the Pacific, he is far enough from Washington, out in California and Boston who says, don't worry about deficits and all. The youngsters are keeping IRA savings accounts and when their IRA savings accounts trigger you will not have to worry about deficits. There is no conscience with this charade. This is the best off-Broadway show you will find going on in the National Government, the National Congress.

I hope we can sober up and pull in our horns. We have so much manpower. We do not have the manpower of the Chinese. We have to maintain our security on the superiority of technology, and Iraq proved that. We had the superior technology. But we have been cutting back on that.

I have a hearing tomorrow morning where we are going to be cutting back the advanced technology. We are cutting back on education programs. We are cutting back on all the important investments.

I ask unanimous consent to print page 1 and page 57 of the Midsession Review for the fiscal year 2004 of the budget of the U.S. Government in the Record.

There you go. Instead of $455 billion in deficits, we are running right this minute, according to the Secretary of the Treasury, in excess of $455 billion. We do not have to wait until the end of September. We are already up to $470 billion.

The ``Public Debt to the Penny,'' I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Otherwise, you have heard the comments. It is going up

to $698 billion, and it will probably be even more than that. They are

trying to be as conservative as they can, I take it.

I appreciate the distinguished author of the amendment yielding me

time to talk on a peripheral matter. But it goes right to the heart of

why they do not include money for Iraq in the Defense appropriations

bills.

No, they don't put in the cost of the war.

I would be delighted to yield to the Senator.

I have the floor. I would be glad to yield to the

distinguished Senator from Alaska for a comment.

Let me yield the floor so the Senator from West

Virginia can straighten the point out.

Will the distinguished Senator yield so I can bring

this into focus?

Madam President, if you took the cumulative deficits

from President Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy,

President Johnson, President Nixon, and President Ford--if you took the

deficits for all of the 30 some years which these six President's ran

up--it would add up to $358 billion. The deficit this year, according

to this President, is going to be almost at $700 billion.

Look at page 57 from the Mid-Session Review released today. See where

the gross debt from 2002 to September 30, 2003, is in black and white;

that is almost $700 billion. We are doubling the 30 plus-year deficit

of Republican and Democratic Presidents--paying for the cost of World

War II, all the costs of Korea, all the costs of 10 years in Vietnam.

We always paid our way.

Abraham Lincoln, the father of the party over there on the other side

of the aisle, put a tax on dividends and on estates in order to pay for

the Civil War.

Now you folks come and want to take the tax off dividends, saying

there is no tomorrow.

I would be delighted to yield.

According to the Concord Coalition--let me refer first

to them--you have diminished revenues $3.12 trillion in 3 years and

three tax cuts.

I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma doesn't want to refer

to the loss of all those revenues. But when the market sees that, they

say: Well, wait a minute. Yes, you can cut the interest rate a quarter

of a point under Alan Greenspan. But that means the Government will be

crowding the financial market with its sharp elbows crowding out

corporate finance, and they freeze in place. And we run huge deficits

in the balance of trade. We are running trade deficits of $500 billion,

that is $1.5 billion a day. The foreign investors who helped cause that

bubble are frozen in place. Then the poor worker finds as he opens his

mouth that his job has gone overseas, so he gets lockjaw and freezes in

place.

This is not like Jack Kennedy who inherited almost a balanced budget.

We started this fiscal year with $428 billion in budget deficits from

last year. This year, it is $698 billion, according to the President of

the United States.

Yes.

It only lasted for 3 years.

That is right. It is bipartisan. Kennedy wasn't

bipartisan. He was a Democrat. This is bipartisan.

Madam President, I am sure these other nine Republican

Governors quoted in this ``Budget Woes Trickle Down''--I am sure they

would love to be able to reduce rates. I know my Republican Governor of

South Carolina would love to reduce rates. They are not given that

option. This ``Budget Woes Trickle Down'' and those nine Republican

Governors are having to raise taxes. Kentucky let the prisoners out.

They are cutting back all the programs. Higher education is decimated.

Every college president is increasing tuition.

``Budget Woes Trickle Down.'' They are not cutting taxes.

Let's get right to where we are.

Bill Richardson is the only exception I have been able

to find.

Yes.

That is right, $698 billion--spending Social Security

tax moneys. That is the revenues. That is how they get to the $455

billion on page 1.

But let me point this out because we were here in 1983, and the

distinguished Chair remembers this, we had the Greenspan commission.

That really started over on the House side with our good friend Wilbur

Mills, who had been chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He upped

the ante along with President Nixon, decimating the trust fund.

So by the end of the 1970s we appointed the Greenspan commission.

After a 3-year study, they came with section 21. It says we are going

to have an inordinate increase in payroll taxes, graduated up so as to

take care of the baby boomers in the next generation. Section 21 says:

And put this money in trust and don't spend it on anything but Social

Security.

Now my friend from Florida, what happens is, it took us from 1983 to

1990, I think it was. It was on November 5, 1990, George Walker Herbert

Bush, President Bush's father, he signed into law section 13301.

Section 13301 of the Budget Act, says: You shall not report a budget,

either the President or the Congress, spending Social Security trust

funds on anything other than Social Security. We put that into law and

they continued to violate it. They continued to spend it. That is

13301.

The vote in the Senate was 98 to 2 for that particular provision. It

is in the law today, in the Budget Act. But that is what they are

doing. That is when the distinguished President started off and he took

office in 2001 and he said: I am setting aside $2.3 trillion to take

care of the needs of Social Security.

He was following through on a pledge that he made in the campaign.

But we spend Social Security moneys on any and everything but Social

Security, and run around like a dog chasing his tail saying we have to

fix Social Security, we have to fix Social Security, we have to fix it,

and they have all kinds of plans: invest in the stock market, get an

IRA, take this percent, that percent, retire early, don't retire--you

know, on and on.

All they need do is obey section 13301 of the law, the Budget Act,

and not spend Social Security revenues on anything and everything but

Social Security. That is all they have to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, 10,000 fresh, juicy

peaches from my home State have been delivered to offices throughout

the Senate, House, and U.S. Capitol. I want to thank the South Carolina

Farm Bureau Federation and the South Carolina Peach Council for giving

my colleagues and their staffs this taste of South Carolina.

For a tiny State, South Carolina is second only to California in

peach production. This year we expect to harvest 130 million pounds,

and because of all the rain the peaches are plumper and juicier than

they have ever been. So with all due respect to my colleagues from

Georgia, South Carolina is known as the ``Tastier Peach State'' for

good reason.

I hope as all of us enjoy these peaches, we think about the farmers

who get up early every morning and labor all summer in the heat and

humidity to bring us this. We are so fortunate to have in this country

safe, plentiful, and affordable fresh fruit and vegetables and none of

us should ever take that for granted.

Finally, I remind the rest of America to ask for South Carolina

peaches at their groceries.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

My most respected colleague from Texas said it is not about doctors and it is not about insurance companies. I would have to dissent from that view from the standpoint of my experience over some 30 years dealing with this particular problem.

We started in the early 1970s with my good friend Victor Schwartz. Product liability was the style of the day, the crisis. The Little Leaguers could not play anymore at the playgrounds. Football was going to have to be abolished because they could not buy safe helmets. They were all being sued because of the helmets. We faced down the situation of so-called product liability and tort reform with the help of the National Legislative Association, the National Governors Association, and some others.

We went to Y2K. We would go to terrorism insurance. I resisted, being an old States righter. I have an unusually good insurance commissioner in South Carolina. In fact, we have low rates as a result of his administration. But from a studied view of this particular situation, the problem is, yes, the doctors and, yes, the insurance companies.

Why do I say that? Well, according to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr. Thompson, there are 100,000 deaths a year in America as a result of medical malpractice. That is people killed. That is casualties. We had 58,000 people killed over 10 years, just about, in Vietnam.

Now, the doctors have to get ahold of themselves in the State of West Virginia, for example. There are some 40 doctors, I think it is, who account for some 25 percent, one-fourth, of the 2,300 malpractice claims.

Incidentally, they are moving down to South Carolina because I have talked to some of my doctor friends. There is no better friend of medicine than this Senator from South Carolina. I have worked with them closely over the many years I have been in the National Government, and as their Governor. We have a very disciplined, one might call it, medical practice in South Carolina. In fact, they have always told me, and again recently affirmed, that if we had the average licensed doctors of some of the other States we would immediately add 1,000 doctors. In other words, it is not easy to practice medicine in the State of South Carolina.

So we go immediately to the doctors disciplining themselves like the lawyers, and I can get example after example of us at the bar association disciplining the lawyers. Unfortunately, the doctors just recently returned now to that particular practice and they are beginning to see that they are having to pay for the whole thing. Otherwise, it is not tort reform; it is insurance reform.

The distinguished Senator from Texas mentioned California. I have heard, and it is true, that California has brought down the malpractice insurance rates for the doctors there. That was done with caps in the beginning, but it did not work--in 1975. And it wasn't until 1988 that they had Proposition 103, to institute insurance reform--not tort reform but insurance reform, where they had an immediate rollback of the rates of some 25 percent, regulation written by the insurance commission, and anyone who wanted to question any rate increase had a right before the commission to petition and be heard.

So, yes, there is a way to do it. But you will see, as I speak here this afternoon, it is not this tort reform. In fact, tort reform is being taken care of in the States. They are moving fast. They are already moving in the State of Illinois, as the distinguished Senator Durbin has been pointing out, with respect to that, and other States have not waited.

The only trouble with the cap is that it has not brought down the rates. The cap States--I mentioned Illinois that has no cap. The rates are up there. But four of the first five--Florida, Michigan, Texas, West Virginia--these four of the five top States with the highest premiums have caps on damages.

So the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have experienced this with caps. I have other examples to show. Time and again, the insurance executives say: Pass the caps, we are not going to lower the rates.

But the majority leader, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, is one of the most eminent physicians. And I don't say that just speaking on the floor in a right fashion. He saved the life of a good friend of mine with a lung transplant back in Tennessee. She has been getting along extremely well as a result of the expertise, the touch, the sensitivity, the bedside manner of Dr. Frist. So there is no question in this body that we have a very valued doctor friend as a Senator from Tennessee.

But Tennessee doesn't have that problem. Of course, there are no caps there. They are below the median in premiums, and they do not have damage caps. I am sure the distinguished doctor/Senator would long since have asked that his State move in that direction if that were the problem.

No, the problem is a political one. We have the doctors in town. It is almost like the computer crowd who came to town with Y2K, and the sky was going to fall--we had to immediately pass Y2K to make sure at the first of the century the world wouldn't end.

We have a similar situation now where we look for the needs of the campaign rather than the needs of the country. We call this bill, right in the middle of the energy bill, appropriations bill, and all the other important matters that we have, tort reform, medical malpractice, because the doctors are in town.

I guess instead of $2,000, those doctors could give $4,000 to political campaigns, so you might call this the $4,000 bill we will be voting on tomorrow morning, as to whether or not we should have cloture. I hope we do have cloture because we ought to nail this buzzard quickly and get rid of it.

You never hear anybody who has been represented as a result of medical malpractice complain about the fee. It is always the loser who complains about a plaintiff's fee. I never have found a plaintiff yet who complained about lawyers' fees.

That gets me right into lawyers because that is the pollster cancer we have in Government in Washington today. You get the pollsters--and they don't know. I never have found a pollster, incidentally, who ever served in government or public office. So they do not know the questions to ask, What about lawyers? Shouldn't we have tort reform? Of course, the Chamber of Commerce has us behaving like toadies for corporate America, doing everything they want because we want their money in order to run for office. So we only pay attention to the money needs and the campaign needs and not the needs of the country.

As far as tort reform is concerned, it is being taken care of at the State level. The big problem, of course, is the losses that have been, not from medical malpractice, incidentally, but from their investments.

Let's say a word about those lawyers because, after all, we just had the

Fourth of July. I saw a program about the forefathers. They were all mentioning the different ones who brought us this 227 years of freedom.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be bought at the

price of chains of liberty and freedom? I know not what

course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or

give me death.

A lawyer said that.

I can see that 34-year-old Jefferson, with the quill in hand:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal.

Equal justice under law, with the Declaration of Independence.

What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

We are out of control: We have a $428 billion budget deficit, after talking about the surplus, surplus, and surpluses for 2 years. The public debt to the penny is $428 billion, and we have not finished the fiscal year.

Madison, the lawyer, the Emancipation Proclamation--Abraham Lincoln, the lawyer.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the lawyer.

You go right on down the line, giving meaning to equal justice under law.

Thurgood Marshall, the lawyer.

These were eminent lawyers and not jury fixers. We have 60,000 lawyers working on K Street. I am one of the 60,000 licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. There are 60,000, and 59,000 will never see the courtroom of law. They are supposed to fix the 535 of us lawmakers here in Government. They are salesmen. I delight in seeing them. They are a big help because we have to have the proceedings, and I listen to both sides and I make up my mind.

But they are, under the bill at hand that has been introduced, not limited in their fees. They sit there claiming frivolity. If you are a trial lawyer, you get the client who comes in. You have to perhaps get the doctor for him, get the medicine. Then if you get the case, get out on the highway, get some pictures and everything else like that, get the experts, draw up the pleadings. After the pleadings are drawn, make all the motions, the interrogatories, and discoveries. Still you haven't gotten a red cent. Time passes on, and what happens is you get to the trial and, after all the trial and the motions in the trial, you have to win all 12 jurors. And after the 12, you have to make the motions on appeal, you have to print up the briefs, you have to go and make the arguments before the appellate court. Then, if you finally win--if you finally win, yes, you get a good fee. But you probably spent a couple of years or more waiting around. And that is the practice of the trial bar.

I have been in it. I have also defended. And they are lazy. Man, they are lazy. I have seen them. They just absolutely sit there and let the runners and investigators do all the work, call that doctor and do this and do that, and then if it is inconvenient, they say: We have a witness who is sick, and we will move for a continuance--because, why? The clock runs. The clock runs, and they get, what, $450 an hour?

I remember when I passed the first textile bill here, a Senator on the other side of the aisle came and said: I know a lawyer downtown who has been paid $1 million to get that bill passed, and he didn't do anything. Here you are, a freshman Senator, and you passed it.

I said: Yes, and I passed it for free because I believe in it.

But you have big fees down here. The clock runs with this corporate crowd, just look at the bill. They say: Oh, no, no--they have no control over their fees. Just control the trial lawyers--with tort reform. You have the biggest myth on the courts we have ever experienced.

Let's go, since my time is limited, to the truth about malpractice premiums. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners:

Total profits as a percentage of premiums for 1999 [that is

the most recent year for which data is available] are nearly

twice as high in the medical malpractice line than the

casualty and property insurance industry coverage. Recent

price increases are merely an attempt by the insurance

industry to maintain the extremely high level of

profitability for malpractice coverage.

If that is all the profits, where are the losses? This is Enron. This is Kenny Boy. The Justice Department spent 2\1/2\ years and they can't get him. They have gotten everybody in the world. They have gotten WorldCom all the way through the courts up to the SEC and reaffirmed their bankruptcy plan, but you haven't heard any more about Kenny Boy.

Listen to what this says:

When terrorists slammed airplanes into the World Trade

Center in 2001, the Donaldson Co. in Bloomington felt the

blow almost immediately. The manufacturer's property

insurance renewed just days later, with nasty surprises.

Our premium quadrupled from $500,000 to $2 million.

I ask unanimous consent to have this article from the Metro edition of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Enron alone hit 11 insurance companies for $350 million in director and officer claims. Enron's bankruptcy also cost St. Paul $10 million in surety bond losses and $12 million in unsecured debt insurers held in the energy company. AIG has announced a $1.8 billion charge in part to deal with claims for both Enron and WorldCom.

All of this was on top of 9/11 which cost insurers $40 billion in losses. Now, we find 9/11 and Enron. Kenny Boy is responsible for the losses. It is not medical malpractice. In fact, in all of the cases, only 1 out of 9, or 12 percent, of the cases actually go to court. Some 26 percent of that small percentage actually are tried. The verdicts are up instead of down. But now we find out from where they come.

I have another article in the final edition of the Gannett Corporation on Friday, January 3, 2003. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it says:

Hoping to cut loose the Enron albatross, J.P. Morgan Chase

early Thursday settled a legal dispute with 11 insurance

firms that had accused the Wall Street bank of engaging in

sham financial deals with the collapsed energy-trading firm.

As part of the settlement, Travelers Property Casualty

could pay up to $159 million; Chubb's Federal Insurance, $110

million; Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, $94 million; Allianz's

Firemen's Fund, $93 million; St. Paul Fire & Marine

Insurance, $80 million; CNA Financial's Continental Casualty

and National Fire Insurance, $47 million; Safeco, $33

million; Hartford Financial Services, $25 million; and

Liberty Mutual Insurance, $13 million.

Let us talk about those losses. Where do we go?

I quote from an article dated June 30 in U.S. News and World Report.

The case of Samuel Desiderio, while tragic, seems to give

perfect voice to the complaints of many doctors who see a

legal system gone wild. As a 4-year-old, he suffered brain

damage following surgery at a New York City

hospital. A state court jury awarded him a hefty $80 million

for medical expenses and pain and suffering. In April, just

two months ago, an appeals court approved boosting the award

against his doctors and the hospital to an astonishing $140

million.

But as Joan Butsko's modest award suggests, caps may not be

the answer. Insurance costs are up, but it's not clear that

juries or the courts are the culprits, or even that the

crisis is as dire as it's being portrayed. The statistics

don't line up as neatly as doctors and insurers would have

them, and left out of the argument is recognition that

ordinary market forces may be at work instead.

For starters, there's no explosion of cases that might

drive up legal costs. The number filed each year has remained

fairly steady during the past decade, according to the

National Center for State Courts. Further, most malpractice

plaintiffs never even see a jury--two thirds of their cases

are dropped or dismissed--and when they do, it often isn't a

sympathetic one. Only a tiny sliver of cases filed--just 0.9

percent of some 5,500 cases surveyed for 2002--produce jury

verdicts for patients claiming injury. And even the size of

that small wedge is down by half since 2000, according to the

Physicians Insurers Association of America, the trade group

for malpractice insurers owned or operated by doctors, which

account for about 60 percent of the market.

Within that wedge, the number of payments that doctors'

insurers make following jury verdicts has held steady in

recent years, at around 400 annually, according to a U.S.

News review of hundreds of thousands of payments of all kinds

reported to the federal National Practitioner Data Bank.

These payments total about $143 million each year.

Malpractice insurers are required by law to report their

payouts to the system.

Doctors and insurers say that frequency of claims aside,

the prime issue is the size of awards. Indeed, the size of

insurer payments stemming from jury verdicts has been

increasing in recent years, U.S. News has found; in 2002 it

reached a median of $295,000. But, that's far below the

median jury award of $1 million the AMA and others often

cite. Even assuming two defendants per case--a number

insurers say is typical--plus other adjustments, the median

payment remains hundreds of thousands of dollars short of the

$1 million figure.

But it's not clear that verdicts are really the whip behind

settlements. Over time, the size of a typical settlement

payment has grown somewhat faster than a typical jury verdict

payment. And while the sum from jury awards has remained

stable over the past decade, the total of payouts from

settlements has soared, especially recently, when doctors say

the crisis has emerged.

Mr. President, that is what punitive damages do. They really set the pace.

Dickie Scruggs and Ron Motley, the trial lawyers in the tobacco case, did more to cure people of cancer or prevent people from getting cancer than Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler.

I have been in the vanguard since Warren Magnuson had me have cancer hearings all the way back in 1967 and 1968. And over the years, we have tried everything in the world to stop people from smoking.

If my time is up, I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

People talk about those two lawyers and say, ``Look at all the fees they got.'' I say look at all the good they did. Over the many years, we have had the American Cancer Society, we have had fundraisers, we have had cancer institutes, we have had all kinds of research and everything else like that, but how do you stop people from smoking? When they got that 360-some-billion-dollar settlement with the Government, the Attorney General, the medical community, and everybody concerned, and the State attorneys general, that failed to pass the Senate, so it was taken up, and I think it was $232 billion that the States settled for. That money is being paid out. In many States they have programs to teach youngsters to avoid smoking. I go to the heart of the Pee Dee in South Carolina where they grow tobacco, and you will see a big sign on the courthouse that says: ``No smoking.''

Now, that really got me. Those two lawyers really deserve every dime they get out of the legal fees. They had been bringing cases upon cases upon cases, and I think their average victory was some 4 in 100 cases.

They just lost another case down in Charleston last year. Of course, there have been ridiculous verdicts, like in Florida, where the punitive damages is somewhere around $27 million, but had been $145 billion. Well, that was a six-man jury and a judge who did not know what they were doing. That was just a seven-man conspiracy. I agree, it was wild and unjustified.

My point is, these trial lawyers are really doing a wonderful service. I can go to the class actions, I can go to the asbestos cases. The onslaught has got to be stopped here on this so-called tort reform because it is totally political. It is totally campaign funds. It is totally the election next year and not the needs of the country.

Mr. President, that is what is going on, and colleagues have to wake up and realize we have a President who runs off to Africa, who has not settled Afghanistan, who does not know where he is in Iraq. All he knows is the election is next year, in November. So there we are. We are being put upon with not the needs of the country but, frankly, with the needs of the campaign.

I have an article here dated September 7 of last year from the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

We really are in trouble. I have in my own State the widow of a physician who worked at a hospital in Columbia, where her husband died after surgery. They had to sue as a result of his death.

How can we, the Congress, solve this problem? Let the doctors discipline the doctors. They are going to have to do it on the one hand. And let's have insurance reform. Yes, the Durbin-Graham approach is salutary in that it does away with the fixing of rates. That ought to be done away with. But the only way to really get at the problem itself is what they did in California with proposition 103 that passed in 1988 and that is to regulate the rates themselves.

You can get the information only then from the insurance companies, and I have tried my best as a member of the Commerce Committee, subject to insurance jurisdiction, to try to again and again, year in and year out. And the insurance companies won't tell you anything because they say they are State regulated and we have no jurisdiction whatsoever over them. If there is one thing that is engaged in interstate commerce, it is insurance.

Let's don't just go with terrorism insurance, and just tax credits to pay the premiums, and patchwork little Band-Aids on this problem. Let's get to the real heart of the problem. The insurance companies lost money. They lost it on Kenny Boy. And now the officers and directors of these corporations are being sued, and the rates have gone up with respect to corporate bad practice. The only way to get at it is insurance reform itself.

We are just acting like a dog chasing its tail when we go on about tort reform, and the lawyer's fees, and joint and severable liability, and product liability. If they are real problems, every State has a legislature and they are subject to that jurisdiction. They can do it. But as far as insurance goes, I have worked with them. I have seen them, after 50 years of governmental service at every level. I had to clean up my own insurance department as Governor of South Carolina. I know it intimately.

I can tell you that we have an insurance reform bill, and I want to work with my colleagues on this, for this is how to take care of the medical malpractice increase in premiums.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, last night with the passing of our revered colleague, Senator Strom Thurmond, I indicated I would have a longer recount of his work. The Nation has lost one of its most distinguished and longest-serving public servants, my State has lost its greatest living legend, and I would like to add to my comments.

By any measure, Senator Thurmond ranks as a giant of modern American politics. Few people in recent memory have had greater influence on the shape and substance of American politics, and few elected officials have shown themselves more devoted to serving the people of their State and nation. There was no more hard-working politician in America than Senator Thurmond. Right up to the day he retired from the Senate, he remained devoted to his constituents.

Of course, any discussion of Senator Thurmond's political and legislative legacy ultimately turns to a discussion of Senator Thurmond the man. He was one of the most amazing men anyone in this Chamber ever has met. He was what we attorneys call ``sui generis.'' When God made Strom, He broke the mold for sure. Merely listing all of Senator Thurmond's ``firsts'' conveys the prodigious energies and talents of the man.

In 1929, he began his political career by becoming the youngest person ever elected Superintendent of Education in Edgefield County, South Carolina. He entered state-wide politics in 1933, when he was elected to the State Senate. As a South Carolina Senator, he was known for his devotion to improving public education and promoting opportunities for the people of my State. His concern for the common man motivated many of his legislative efforts, such as writing the act that raised workers' compensation benefits and sponsoring South Carolina's first Rural Electrification Act. Although these efforts may seem far removed from our concerns today, they were crucial to my State at the time.

He left the Senate in 1938 to become Judge Thurmond. Continuing his life-long love affair with politics and public service, he served as a South Carolina Circuit Judge until the United States entered the Second World War in 1941. Then Judge Thurmond took off his robe and volunteered for active duty. He enlisted despite the fact that, as a 39-year-old Circuit Judge, he was exempt from military service.

He fought in five battles in 4 years, and on D-Day, he rode a glider into Normandy with the 82nd Airborne. For his wartime service, Senator Thurmond was awarded 18 decorations, including the Purple Heart, Bronze Star for Valor, and Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster. He remained in the Army Reserves after the War and was made Major General in 1959.

After the war, he came home and ran for Governor. He was elected in 1947, and his administration was known for its progressive policies on education and infrastructure. During his tenure, 60,000 new jobs were created in the private sector, teacher pay was boosted to unprecedented levels, and the State Farmers' Market was begun. These initiatives helped start South Carolina on the road to a dynamic, modern economy.

In 1948, Governor Thurmond ran for President on the States' Rights ticket. In 1954, he became the first person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in candidate. That election established him as a force in national politics and a giant in South Carolina.

He was reelected to the Senate eight times, more than any Senator. When he left in January, he was the oldest and longest-serving Senator in U.S. history. He served as chairman of two powerful committees: Judiciary and Armed Services. In those capacities, he played an important role in keeping our national defense strong and ensuring the quality of our Federal judiciary.

He took controversial stands on civil rights and other divisive issues, but over time he changed and ended up garnering the support of many of those whom he opposed. He will go down in history for his devotion to his constituents.

Senator Thurmond also changed the course of politics in the South. His conversion to the Republican party in 1964 heralded a new age in party affiliation in the South and led the way for the region's transformation from a one-party, Democratic stronghold.

Senator Thurmond is gone, but his legacy will live on for many lifetimes. The people of South Carolina loved him as they have loved no other politician.

Today his loss is mourned across my state, by Democrats and Republicans alike. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in the Senate lament the loss of an admired colleague whose influence on this institution will stand for generations.

Mr. President, my friend and colleague of 36 years in the Senate is gone. A giant oak in the forest of public service has fallen.

I started with Senator Thurmond as a young law student in 1946 when he first ran for Governor and have been more or less with him over these many, many years. I will have a real recount of our work together later. That is the way it was even though we ended up on other sides of the aisle. There was never any doubt about the interests of South Carolina.

We have all this argument going on now with respect, for example, to judges. He and I got together very early. We agreed when his President was in office from his particular party that he had the appointment, but he always asked me about it and, of course, I in turn asked him about it. We checked with each other. That is the kind of way we worked together over the some 36 years.

I can say just a living legend of South Carolina now has been terminated. But I want to give Nancy and the children my heartfelt condolences. Peatsy and I have known them and been with them over the many, many years. I will have more to say at a later time. I thank the leadership for their recognition. I hope, perhaps, when we complete our work tonight, we might adjourn out of respect for our colleague.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003.

The Senate has spent the last 2 weeks debating how to help our Nation's senior citizens afford their prescription drugs. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that average annual out-of-pocket drug spending for Medicare beneficiaries grew from $644 3 years ago to $999 this year and will reach $1,454 by the time this bill takes effect in 2006. As a result, 25 percent of seniors without drug coverage declined to fill a prescription and 27 percent of seniors without drug coverage skipped doses to make their prescriptions last longer. This is unacceptable. These citizens deserve affordable, comprehensive, and reliable drug coverage. Unfortunately, the legislation now before us fails to provide sufficient coverage.

From the outset this proposal will confuse seniors. Enrollees in private plans better not get too comfortable because their plans could be gone in 2 years if the HMOs find them unprofitable just like they have with Medicare+Choice in my state of South Carolina. The same goes for enrollees in fallback plans. They will be kicked out of their plan in as early as a year if enough private plans enter their area. This volatile system could force seniors to move in between three separate plans, with three separate formularies, in 3 years. This bill should create a sense of stability in the system and reduce the confusion over coverage. That is why I supported first the Stabenow amendment and then the Lincoln-Conrad amendment, which would have extended the availability of fallback plans to ensure that seniors will have access to stable drug coverage.

Senior citizens will need to hire an accountant just to comprehend the benefits available to them under this legislation. Once seniors select their Medicare drug plan, they will have to maneuver a maze of premiums, deductibles and copayments for benefits that contain huge gaps in coverage. On top of their premiums, which will vary from region to region and plan to plan, seniors will get no help for the first $275 of their drug costs, pay half of costs from $276 to $4,500, pay all the costs from $4,501 to at least $5,813, and then pay a tenth of costs above $5,288. With a breakeven point of $1,115, many healthier Medicare beneficiaries will opt not to participate. With a coverage gap of $1,302, many of the sickest patients will still have to continue paying premiums even though they may have to resort to rationing their care until they can spend their way out of the ``doughnut.''

Once again, the Senate defeated a number of amendments that I supported that would have brought much needed simplicity and fairness to the bill including the Boxer amendment, which would have closed the coverage gap for all seniors, and the Daschle amendment, which would have limited the regional variation among premiums to 110 percent of the national average. Finally, we chose to provide $13 billion in new subsidies to PPOs and HMOs instead of using that money to reduce premiums or fill in the coverage gap for cancer or Alzheimer's patients. All in all, the bill provides Medicare beneficiaries with a benefit valued at about $1,000 less than the drug coverage available to Federal employees.

This is a plan only Washington could dream up. It should come as no surprise that the authors of this convoluted mess and their friends in the White House have decided to wait until after the 2004 election before allowing Medicare beneficiaries to see what they are in for.

I should also note that this Nation is more than $6.6 trillion in debt. This bill is part of budget resolution and economic plan that will run up an average deficit of $600 billion a year for the next 10 years. Make no mistake about it, we will borrow every red cent to pay for this program. And what do we get in return? Massive subsidies for HMOs, spotty drug coverage for senior citizens, and a lack of attention to the factors driving the rapid increase of health care costs in this country. If we are going to borrow from future generations to pay for this benefit, we should get it right.

Now that we have disposed of all amendments and final passage appears imminent, I have concluded taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries would be better served if we go back to the drawing board. We should come back with a proposal with affordable premiums and cost sharing requirements with no gaps in coverage that is administered in a manner that gives seniors the same sense of security they receive under the current Medicare program. I have heard many of my colleagues say this is an important first step and it is important that we get something on the books. Nonsense. Thirty months will pass before the first beneficiary receives coverage. That was enough time to draft and ratify the Constitution. It was enough time to complete the Manhattan Project. Thirty months should be more than enough time for us to create a real, meaningful prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens.

I hope this body will have the wisdom to vote no and do this right.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is particularly important to me, in that it culminates nearly 30 years of efforts to preserve the wilderness of South Carolina for future generations of Americans. This legislation proposes to raise the designation of the Congaree Swamp National Monument to the Congaree National Park, and to increase its size by 20 percent.

I still remember when my friend, Harry Hampton, enlisted my help to protect the big trees that were being destroyed 500 acres a year in the central part of my State. In 1976, Congress set aside 15,000 acres to establish the Congaree Swamp National Monument. In the late 1980s, we expanded it by another 7,000 acres. More recently, we've invested in a visitor center and this investment has far exceeded this Senator's expectations.

The attendance has ballooned to 120,000 visitors every year, including some 12,000 students, who use the forest as their classroom to nature. It has awakened an interest in the environment for these children. They cruise the Congaree, learning how to identify trees, birds, animals, and everything like that. All kinds of groups take hikes, nature walks and canoe trips to see the almost 1,000 different types of trees, plants, animals, and birds in the forest.

This is home to some of the tallest and rarest trees in the Eastern United States--some are 400 years old. It is home to the largest example of old growth southern hardwood forest in North America. All eight species of woodpeckers can be found here, including the endangered red-cockaded variety.

Yet had Congress not acted back in 1976, none of this may be around today. We were able to save at least a few thousand acres of what once covered vast portions of the east coast, so future generations of Americans can enjoy it. There is a lesson here. The Government can do good for the environment. It is in the interest of our nation to protect our nation's treasures.

My legislation, the Congaree National Park Act of 2003 continues the progress we have seen the last 25 years. It would add another 4,576 acres of ecologically rich land; and it would redesignate the Monument into a fullfledged National Park, which would be the first in South Carolina. The Congaree Swamp is widely recognized as one of the most unique and rare ecological habitats in the country. This designation not only recognizes the significance of this area but the wonderful job the National Park Service is doing to make this a growing attraction for local, State, national, and international visitors.

The project has received support from a number of organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters of endorsement be printed in the Record. I hope to work on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues to pass the legislation this session.