Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President. Let me first ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``The Filmmaker Who Told America's Story'' by Phil McCombs that appeared in the Washington Post last week.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the ranking member of the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, Senator Allen, regarding the provisions of H.R. 3394 that provide for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, to develop checklists for widely used software products.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. The President's policy is correct, but his implementation miserable. One would hope that, with an imminent threat, the Congressional leadership is corralled quietly, briefed, and allies consulted for whatever action is taken. On the contrary, this President started off by threatening friends and foes alike blabbing, ``You are either with us or against us,'' ``We are the world superpower,'' ``I don't need the U.N.,'' ``I don't need the Congress.'' He seemed totally oblivious to the fact that he is going in two different directions at the same time. Success in the war on terrorism is largely dependent on support of the Arab world, but with the President's abruptness and braggadocio, that support could disappear with the invasion of an Arab country. The President thinks leadership is announcing without any massaging. His policy of preventive war was made to appear that war was our first choice. At one time the President managed to have the international community united against us. Now, it seems that President Bush has been housebroken on foreign policy. He has asked for the approval of Congress; he has presented his case to the United Nations; and, amazingly, last week said that for the United States, ``War is the last option.'' In turn, some of our European allies have come on board so that we now have a coalition, the United Nations is strengthening its inspection resolution and finally-- itself. The resolution of approval by the Congress for the President to take action has now been changed to make sense. While the threat is not imminent, the goal is desirable and the failure of Congress and the President to move together at this point would seriously damage our creditbility and cause us irreparable harm in foreign affairs.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, during the summer I cautioned that we had problems: the terrorism war, the Middle East, Iraq, and we needed to put first things first. Success in the terrorism war depends in large measure on the cooperation and support of the Arab world. Obviously, this support would sharply diminish with an invasion of Iraq. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict had gotten out of hand with daily suicide bombings and we needed to stablize the peace process before invading. More importantly, I was convinced that any imminent threat from Saddam would be handled by Israel without debate. I ask unanimous consent a copy of these thoughts published in the Charleston, SC Post and Courier back in August be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to Israel Brooks, a native of Newberry County, SC, as he retires from a 35-year career in law enforcement, most recently as the U.S. Marshal for the District of South Carolina. In March of 1994, I nominated Mr. Brooks to that important position, and I believe his record in the past eight years has proven what this Senator has long felt: it is one of the best nominations I ever made. He has served with such great distinction that in 1996 the District of South Carolina, under Mr. Brooks' leadership, earned the ``Distinguished District of the Year Award'' for being the best in the nation in efficiency, service, and work ethics. Mr. Brooks served in the South Carolina Highway Patrol, being promoted through the ranks all the way up to Major. He served his country as a U.S. Marine. He also served his community, devoting an incredible amount of time and effort to helping elementary, junior high, and senior high students throughout the state. We will miss Mr. Brooks. I know all the Senators in this body not only thank him for his many achievements, but wish him and his family all the best.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sorrow at the untimely and tragic death of a talented and dedicated public servant, James Martin. On the evening of Wednesday, October 2, Jim Martin became the first homicide victim in this week's violent and senseless string of shootings in suburban Maryland. Jim was an outstanding civilian employee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, OMAO, the branch of NOAA that operates the agency's scientific ocean research vessels and the famous P-3 ``Hurricane Hunter'' aircraft. Jim served as a program analyst in the Resource Management Division of OMAO. For 16 years, first with the Office of the Comptroller, then with OMAO, Jim used his talents as a program analyst to advance NOAA's mission and core values. Jim was credited with single-handedly orchestrating and implementing OMAO's program to improve NOAA employee satisfaction, and with becoming a Diversity Coordinator not because he was asked to, but because he believed in the principles and in improving representation of diversity in the sciences. Jim began his commitment to diversity issues long ago, when he worked here in the U.S. Senate on Native American affairs as a legislative assistant for Senator Lee Metcalf of Montana. At NOAA, Jim also was instrumental in OMAO's adoption of a Washington, DC, elementary school and worked to get NOAA pilots and ship captains to talk to youth about our sea and skies. When the school needed computers, Jim quickly came up with 10 surplus ones for students. He was in the process of arranging a ``tour'' for the kids on a NOAA research vessel. Jim's demonstrated commitment to inspire minority youth to become future scientists sets a standard for us all to follow. Jim's colleagues say that he was always a gentleman, that he listened first, and talked second. With his subtle sense of humor, and ready willingness to help, Jim is already sorely missed by his colleagues throughout the NOAA community. Our deep condolences go out to Jim's wife Billie and their 11-year old son Ben in this very difficult time.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in 1993, that same Alan Greenspan went down to Arkansas. To meet with President-Elect Bill Clinton at an economic conference. He said what we really needed to do is pay down the debt; then President Clinton came to town, and without a single Republican vote, we cut spending and we increased taxes. That is when the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, said: If you increase taxes on Social Security, they will be hunting you Democrats down like dogs in the street and shooting you. Well, I voted to increase taxes on Social Security. I voted to increase taxes on gasoline. I voted to increase taxes on whom? The stock crowd in New York. And the stock crowd in New York rejoiced. They turned around and said: The Government in Washington finally has gotten serious and is going to pay down the bill--that huge debt--and we are going to start investing. Then we had an 8-year economic boom. Along comes candidate George W. Bush. When candidate Bush came on that campaign trail, I will never forget it. It was about this time, the year before last. He said he was going to cut taxes. I was watching it, being an old Budget Committee chairman and thinking, How in the world are they going to do this? They didn't have any taxes to cut. We got right into the black under President Clinton's economic plan. We were hearing about going in the absolute opposite direction and arguing now why. Everybody knows why. Immediately after his election in November, on the Friday of that particular week, Vice President Cheney said we were going to cut taxes. Everybody started taking him seriously. This was not just a campaign statement. Then I can tell you who pulled the plug on the economy-- irrationally exuberant Alan Greenspan himself. He appeared on January 25--I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, earlier this morning I heard a distinguished colleague on this side of the aisle refer to ending the fiscal year with a $150 to $160 billion deficit. Thereafter, I was astounded to hear a colleague from the other side of the aisle say tax cuts increase revenues. If that latter statement were true, we would just come here and cut taxes every day because that is what we need, revenues. Ever since this President took office, we have run the most astounding debt of a free country. Instead of paying down the debt, there isn't any question, when he came here he started cutting taxes. He put in an economic team headed by Larry Lindsey--the only fellow in America who thinks the economy is good. Until you get rid of that economic team and stop this singsong about cutting taxes, and instead start paying down the debt, the economy is not going to recover. Let me go right to what the debt is because today is October 2, two days since the end of fiscal year 2002. Under law, the Treasurer of the United States is required to publish the public debt every day. We ended the fiscal year 2002 on September 30, with a deficit of $421 billion, and a debt of $6.2 trillion, up from $5.8 trillion last year. I have been up here 36 years. This is the biggest deficit we have ever had. George the first gave us a $402 billion deficit. He exceeded the $400 billion mark. Now George the second, topped it with $421 billion. The Senator from Oklahoma said that if you cut the taxes, you increase the revenues. George the first called that voodoo. This is voodoo two. Here is how we got into this particular dilemma, because we all are guilty on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol. It was Mark Twain who said that the truth is such a precious thing, it should be used very sparingly. Well, not really kidding about the truth, going to the seriousness of the truth, it was never better stated than by my friend James Fallows, in his book ``Breaking the News'' back in 1996, when he related the debate over how you constitute and maintain a strong democratic government. The debate was between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey, the famous educator. It was Lippmann's contention that what you really need to do is get the best of minds in the particular disciplines--the best fellow on education, the best on forestry and fires, the best fellow on health care, the best fellow on defense, and whatever it is, the experts in the fields--to sit around the table and agree on the needs of the country and their expert solution to the problem of those needs. John Dewey, the famous educator, said: No, all we need to do is have the free press tell the truth to the American people. And out of those truths, emanating through their representatives, their Senators in Government in Washington, would come the proper programs to strengthen and maintain that democracy. That for the first time ever gave me the understanding of Jefferson's observation that as between a free government and a free press, he would choose the latter. Obviously, of course, with that free press telling the truth, we would always maintain a strong democracy. But we haven't been telling the truth. I have been trying for a good 20-some years now, since I was chairman of the Budget Committee, to get us to tell the truth: Simply, how much in revenues the Government took in, and how many expenditures there were. We need to find out what the net is, so we know whether we ended up with a surplus or with a deficit. Using this technique, the fiscal year 2002 deficit, that ended just two days ago, was $421 billion. How many Senators, time and time again, say: We have to hold the deficit to $165 billion, but we are not going to touch Social Security? How many Senators have said we have a $5.6 trillion surplus, but we are not going to touch Social Security? Let me go to the Social Security story. In 1935, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we passed the most formative of governmental programs. Between 1930 and 1969, we never used Social Security moneys to pay the Government's debt. However, in 1971, I was here when we had the famous expert on government finance, Congressman Wilbur Mills, and he started up into New Hampshire running for the Presidency, promising a 10-percent increase in the cost of living adjustment to the Social Security recipient. He said that we have such a surplus in the Social Security trust fund, he would give them a full 10 percent. Of course, President Nixon came back and said in the campaign: If he gives you 10 percent, I will give you 15 percent. With that one-upmanship during the 1970s, we were drained, and the Social Security trust fund almost went into the red by 1980. We appointed the famous Greenspan Commission, which came out with a report in January 1983 called the ``National Commission on Social Security Reform.'' You will see under section 21--and I read from it: A majority of the members of the National Commission recommends that the operations of the Social Security trust funds should be removed from the unified budget. It took this Senator from 1983 until 1990--7 years--to get a vote on this. I finally got it out of the Budget Committee, but not unanimously. There was one vote by someone who said they would ``chase me down like a dog in the streets'' when I was recommending an increase in taxes in 1993. There was one Senator on that Budget Committee, who would surprise everybody, who said, no, he didn't want to put Social Security off budget. But when we came to a vote on the floor, 98 Senators voted for it. President George Herbert Walker Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed section 13.301 of the Budget Act into law, which states: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust fund shall not be counted in any budget of the United States Government. There it is. That is the law of the land. Unfortunately, there is no penalty if you don't follow it. I tried to get a penalty saying you would forfeit your own Social Security if ever you quoted a budget including the Social Security trust funds. I ask unanimous consent that this section be printed in the Congressional Record at this time, along with section 31 of the report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent for another 10 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I join the chorus of Senators who today are saluting our good friend of 30 years, the distinguished Senior Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms. For all 30 years the two of us, representing both Carolinas, have shared the fight to keep jobs in our respective states. If I can say one thing about this man, it is that he has always, always looked out for the interests of the little guy. Too many in this town want to forget about the people who get up every day, give an honest day's work at a textile plant, play by the rules, but lose out because of the unfair trade policies of this country. Senator Helms always looked out for the people Washington could care less about; the people who Washington thinks we can re-train into high-tech, high-tech, but who wants a 55-year old first time computer operator? For his voice on trade issues is how this Senator will remember my friend, and it is for this voice that he has been such a great asset to this institution. Obviously, on many issues we disagreed; but he and I would cross any and every party line to help the people of our states. In the future, no trade debate in this body will ever be the same without the man who served as Senator from North Carolina longer than any other from that state. My wife, Peatsy, and I congratulate Dot and Jesse, and we wish them only health and happiness in the future.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this week my colleague, the senior Senator from South Carolina, had a great loss on his staff with the passing of Mrs. Holly J. Richardson, after a battle with cancer. She was Senator Thurmond's executive assistant and personal secretary, having worked for him for half of his career in this body. But Holly also was a part of the entire Senate family from South Carolina, being as kind and accommodating to my office in the many dealings that we have together as she was to Senator Thurmond. She was the most efficient, conscientious person you'll ever want to meet, always doing her job with the gracious attitude of the fine southern lady she was. We will miss her. We extend our deepest sympathies to her husband, Phil, and to her children, Anne and Emmett.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 490, S. 2506, the intelligence authorization; that the committee-reported amendments be withdrawn; the only amendment in order to be a Graham amendment; that the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read three times, and the Intelligence Committee then be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4628, the House companion, and the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 2506, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate without intervening action or debate; and that S. 2506 be returned to the calendar.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, cloture was filed on the Gramm-Miller amendment to the homeland security bill. Therefore, Senators have until 1 p.m. on Thursday to file first-degree amendments.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 458, just received from the House.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:15 a.m., Thursday, September 26; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period for morning business until 11:15 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the first half of the time under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the second half of the time under the control of the Republican leader or his designee; that at 11:15 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of the homeland security bill.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished minority leader has noted Strom's comment about the beauty of his wife Patricia. Strom has also done that to my wife Peatsy. I think the record ought to be made here that for Strom Thurmond, all women are beautiful. Madam President, as the longest serving junior Senator in the history of the Senate, it is my distinct honor and privilege to pay tribute to the longest serving senior Senator and the longest serving Senator in the history of the Senate. The story is told about a Washington matron at one of these evening receptions, how she rushed up to a Spanish Ambassador and allowed: Mr. Ambassador, this bull fighting, the No. 1 sport in your country, I think it is revolting. After a pause, the Ambassador turned to the matron and said: Madam, you are mistaken. Bull fighting is our No. 2 sport; revolting is our No. 1. That has been the record of J. Strom Thurmond in the field of public service. He has definitely been a revolutionary with respect to public service. At age 29, he served as the youngest county superintendent of education in the history of our State; thereupon, being elected as the youngest State Senator from his home county; thereafter, as the youngest circuit judge presiding, being elevated there in the year 1938. When Germany declared war, just a few days after December 7--Germany declared war first on us before we declared war on Germany--Strom Thurmond, as a presiding circuit judge, took off those robes and volunteered for service in World War II. He was exempt from service under our judiciary rules in the State of South Carolina, but he didn't hesitate. And as has been noted here, made the invasion on D-day, June 6, 1944, in Europe and served in five campaigns with valor and courage, coming back to retire as a major general in the U.S. Army. In 1948, he organized the only really successful third party movement in this country as a States Rights Party, and as a candidate for President he carried South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana--he carried four States. Thereafter, in 1954 he was the first--and I take it the only--Senator ever elected to the Senate as a write-in candidate. Then, in 1964, having been a Democrat, he changed parties. He saw the future of the State of South Carolina and the South in the Republican Party, and he has led the move ever since. There is no question in my mind that he has had the most distinguished of service up here, serving as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the President pro tempore of the Senate. But I think people back home know Strom best of all for his constituent service. Whether it is the job found for a constituent, or helping a family get a relative admitted to the hospital, or sending a letter to the deceased's family, or helping when the soldier is brought back home, or whatever it is, you can count on Strom. I can tell that to you right now. He has made his fame looking out for the people of his home State. It has been noted that Strom was born when Teddy Roosevelt was President. Elihu Root, who was the Secretary of State for Teddy Roosevelt, once remarked that: Politics is the practical art of self government and someone must attend to it if we are going to have self government. And he made the cogent observation: The principal ground for reproach against any American citizen is that he is not a politician. In representative America, every citizen counts. Heaven knows, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina has counted at every particular turn, during illustrious service of some 70 years. I think he is the living example that the best politics is no politics. It is my privilege to pay tribute to him now. I am sure I am going to have the opportunity many times hereafter as we both move along. But it has been a distinct pleasure to serve as his junior Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr HOLLINGS

Mr HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, and I are sponsoring to assist rural farming communities that have become dependent on tobacco in finding ways to diversify. Right to the point: The tobacco program as we know it today is not sustainable for tobacco producers or the communities that have become dependent on tobacco for their standard of living. For too many years, too many people in this Chamber ignored the problem of the tobacco program, while addressing every other farm issue under the sun, and we now run the risk of putting tobacco farmers out of business with no concern for the impacts on rural communities. It is in the best interest of not only tobacco farmers and their communities, but of the future health of Americans, to pass this legislation South Carolina has about 2,000 honest, hard-working tobacco farmers who, of late, can't make ends meet because the demand for tobacco is down so far. It's not that everyone in the world has all of a sudden stopped using tobacco. It's that American companies are using foreign- grown tobacco. It's cheaper for corporations to go to Brazil, or China, or Vietnam, than to buy tobacco from South Carolina or Georgia. The same thing that happened to textile workers in this country is now happening to our farmers, who have bills to pay, and children to send to college, and everything else like that. In addition to low demand, farmers are in trouble because of past Federal policies intended to encourage farmers to get out of this business, which have instead led them to totally rely on tobacco. At the recommendation of the President's Tobacco Commission, we need to kick the habit of quota subsidies for tobacco farmers or this charade will never end. Any legislation that fails to focus on the tobacco problem as a community, is not dealing with the problem as a whole. We have to help tobacco communities diversify their economic base, or they will plummet into further economic distress. This legislation provides these communities with the tools to attract new industries and, thus, new and different kinds of jobs for the area. We can't expect to buy farmers out, try to take care of them with a short-term fix, and not take care of the communities' long-term future. This legislation does just that by making quota buy outs for farmers mandatory, offering special incentives for growers who transition their land from tobacco production and providing meaningful community assistance to bring economic development and diversify the rural economy. Obviously, every one in this Chamber will want to know: how will we pay for it? What will these buyouts cost a government that this year is running a $412 billion budget deficit? It will not cost the American taxpayer a single dime. I will be paid for by fees assessed on manufacturers based on market share. We used a similar funding mechanism in the LEAF Act that had the full support of tobacco growing states. When you come right down to it, this is a balancing act to fix a broken farm program without decimating rural communities and without cost to the American taxpayer. This is as balanced a way as Senator Cleland and I know how to deal with this. The legislation has the support of the health care community and the tobacco growers alike. We have received letters of support from the Alliance for Health Economic and Agriculture Development, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the South Carolina Tobacco Growers Association, the South Carolina Farm Bureau, Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation, and the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association. We urge your support.

Mr HOLLINGS

Mr HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland, and I are sponsoring to assist rural farming communities that have become dependent on tobacco in finding ways to diversify. Right to the point: The tobacco program as we know it today is not sustainable for tobacco producers or the communities that have become dependent on tobacco for their standard of living. For too many years, too many people in this Chamber ignored the problem of the tobacco program, while addressing every other farm issue under the sun, and we now run the risk of putting tobacco farmers out of business with no concern for the impacts on rural communities. It is in the best interest of not only tobacco farmers and their communities, but of the future health of Americans, to pass this legislation South Carolina has about 2,000 honest, hard-working tobacco farmers who, of late, can't make ends meet because the demand for tobacco is down so far. It's not that everyone in the world has all of a sudden stopped using tobacco. It's that American companies are using foreign- grown tobacco. It's cheaper for corporations to go to Brazil, or China, or Vietnam, than to buy tobacco from South Carolina or Georgia. The same thing that happened to textile workers in this country is now happening to our farmers, who have bills to pay, and children to send to college, and everything else like that. In addition to low demand, farmers are in trouble because of past Federal policies intended to encourage farmers to get out of this business, which have instead led them to totally rely on tobacco. At the recommendation of the President's Tobacco Commission, we need to kick the habit of quota subsidies for tobacco farmers or this charade will never end. Any legislation that fails to focus on the tobacco problem as a community, is not dealing with the problem as a whole. We have to help tobacco communities diversify their economic base, or they will plummet into further economic distress. This legislation provides these communities with the tools to attract new industries and, thus, new and different kinds of jobs for the area. We can't expect to buy farmers out, try to take care of them with a short-term fix, and not take care of the communities' long-term future. This legislation does just that by making quota buy outs for farmers mandatory, offering special incentives for growers who transition their land from tobacco production and providing meaningful community assistance to bring economic development and diversify the rural economy. Obviously, every one in this Chamber will want to know: how will we pay for it? What will these buyouts cost a government that this year is running a $412 billion budget deficit? It will not cost the American taxpayer a single dime. I will be paid for by fees assessed on manufacturers based on market share. We used a similar funding mechanism in the LEAF Act that had the full support of tobacco growing states. When you come right down to it, this is a balancing act to fix a broken farm program without decimating rural communities and without cost to the American taxpayer. This is as balanced a way as Senator Cleland and I know how to deal with this. The legislation has the support of the health care community and the tobacco growers alike. We have received letters of support from the Alliance for Health Economic and Agriculture Development, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the South Carolina Tobacco Growers Association, the South Carolina Farm Bureau, Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation, and the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association. We urge your support.