Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in light of John McKissick's historic football accomplishments, I ask that this article from the September 11 USA Today be printed in the Record. The article follows. [From the USA Today, Sept. 11, 2003] Football Coach all Alone at Brink of 500 Wins (By Jill Lieber) He's the winningest football coach at any level, going for his 500th victory Friday night. He has 10 state championships and 26 regional titles. And in 52 years at the helm of the mighty Green Wave of Summerville High School, John McKissick is known for something else in this quaint, historic burg, population 27,752: as a leader of the community, the glue that holds the town together. ``John McKissick has been a vital part of forming connections around this town,'' says David Pugh, Summerville High's principal. ``What makes a community successful is the quality of life, and John has shown great leadership in that. He has been able to connect people. He has taught them how to share.'' McKissick, two weeks shy of his 77th birthday, has molded 3,014 teenage boys into players over the years. He has instilled pride in tens of thousands of Summerville High students, cheerleaders, band members, teachers and parents. And he has provided excitement for countless more football fans, who have turned out 10,000 strong, in their green and gold, every Friday night in the fall for the past six decades. Grandfathers, fathers, uncles, brothers, sons, the next- door neighbor's kid, even the piccolo player down the street: Everybody here is tied to the Green Wave in some way. Why, McKissick now is coaching the third generation of some Summerville families. His own grandson, Joe Call, a former Green Wave quarterback, is an assistant coach. Truth be told, the folks in this town, nestled on a piney ridge 25 miles northwest of Charleston, would be lost without McKissick. ``So many leaders have come through the John McKissick system,'' says Bo Blanton, chairman of the school board and former Green Wave quarterback. ``Police officers. Teachers. Lawyers. Doctors. Dentists. Legislators. Coaches. The bond has been formed over the years, the winning tradition of the football program has permeated through the community, all because of the excellence of John McKissick. So many people have felt a part of it. So many people have been inspired by it.'' At 8 p.m. Friday, at McKissick Field, on John McKissick Way, the legendary coach will try to give Summerville yet another treat: The Green Wave (2-0) play local rival Mount Pleasant Wando High (1-1) in what could be McKissick's 500th victory. Coincidentally, McKissick beat Wando in October 1993 for his 406th victory, which set the national high school football record. Berlin G. Myers Sr., Summerville mayor the past 33 years and owner of the local lumber company, has declared this John McKissick Week. (Several years ago, Myers actually rescheduled Halloween because it fell on a game night.) Joan McKissick--who wed her husband in June 1952, just two weeks before he took the job at Summerville--has spruced up the press box with photos of past and present Green Wave players for the media rolling into town for the big game. She's expecting hundreds of family and friends. Troy Knight, the town's attorney, a former Green Wave ball boy, manager and trainer, is a major player with the 500th Committee. That's a group of local business people who have brainstormed ways to commemorate McKissick's milestone. They're throwing a party on the field after the game for McKissick's 82 varsity players and their families, if the team wins. The city will come together Nov. 8 for a fundraiser: Summerville will be establishing a John and Joan McKissick Scholarship. ``Coach McKissick is an educator, first and foremost,'' Knight says. ``His vehicle just happens to be coaching. This is a way for his legacy to live on forever.'' Winning admiration of peers McKissick, a quiet, unassuming man, has not missed a game in 52 years--631 games. Not health, not weather, not an act of God has stopped him. He has had only two losing seasons (1957 and 2001). His wife has missed just three games. She's the Green Wave's official historian and her husband's trusted biographer, thanks to the piles of scrapbooks she has religiously kept throughout his career. She's also the curator of the largest collection of Green Wave artifacts, most engulfing the playroom of their ranch house, which the McKissicks affectionately call The Green Wave Room. South Carolina Gamecocks coach and friend Lou Holtz is keeping his fingers crossed that McKissick will reach 500 Friday. ``I don't know of any individual who has done more for high school football or for the state of South Carolina than John McKissick,'' Holtz said through his sports information director. ``He not only has taught winning football, he has developed winning young men. He has been so unselfish with his time. His loyalty to Summerville and the state of South Carolina really impresses me.'' Florida State coach Bobby Bowden (334 victories), second to Penn State's Joe Paterno as the winningest Division I-A football coach, also is sending good vibes to his good buddy McKissick. ``The victories bring pride to the state of South Carolina, especially since he is one of their own,'' Bowden said through his school's sports information director. ``It also brings great attention to what you can do if you just persevere. I don't know if it can ever be broken. ``I think Coach McKissick's longevity is due to the fact that he has his priorities in order and that football is not his No. 1 priority. A man must have persistence and love of the game and love of life to coach so long.'' Everything he wants right here. McKissick's persistence and perseverance were forged from a tough childhood. Born in Greenwood, S.C., McKissick was the second of Harry and Ethel's three sons. Harry owned the Pepsi and Nehi Bottling Co. A few months after the 1929 stock market crash, the McKissicks returned home one night to find their house destroyed by a fire. Within months, the bottling plant went bankrupt. The family moved to Lake City, S.C., where McKissick's dad opened a corner grocery that went belly up within two years. Life got better after his mom got a job as lunchroom supervisor for the public schools in Williamsburg County--she worked there 40 years--and his dad became a guard standing shotgun on the county chain gang. But the tough times didn't stop. McKissick grew up in homes without toilets and running water. He didn't wear shoes to school until the eighth grade. And the family could afford to eat meat--fried chicken--only on Sundays. He was drawn to coaching because he recalled how happy his Kingstree High school coach, Jimmy Welch, always looked. ``I figured it must be a good profession.'' In the fall of '51, he landed a job in Clarkton, N.C.--over the phone, sight unseen. Little did he know he'd be coaching six-man football; it paid $2,700 a year. He called Lonnie MacMillian, his coach at Presbyterian College and a pioneer of the Split-T offense, for advice. ``He gave me four plays to run told me to run--them to the right and left, so it would seem like I had eight,'' says McKissick, whose team went 7-0. (None of those victories are included in his 499 wins.) In the spring of 1952, McKissick applied for the job at Summerville. ``The superintendent, Frank Kirk, later told me I got the job because I was the only applicant who didn't ask how much it paid.'' McKissick coached boys and girls basketball, baseball and track. He taught two South Carolina history classes and three U.S. history classes. And he mowed and lined the football field, shined the football cleats, washed the game uniforms and taped the players' ankles, all for $3,000 a year. ``Growing up poor gave me drive,'' he says. ``I put pressure on myself to try to achieve something in life. I had empathy for kids who had a tough time, especially if they were trying, and compassion for those who lacked confidence.'' McKissick has been approached about college head coaching jobs (The Citadel, Newberry, Presbyterian), but he has never come close to leaving. His wife was a postal carrier for 30 years until she retired in 1986. They raised two daughters here: Debbie and Cindy, a former Green Wave cheerleader. ``People always ask me why I didn't take another job,'' McKissick says. ``I grew up hard, not having everything I wanted. People have different wants and needs. A lot of people want more than what they really need. ``Working with kids has kept me young; it has allowed me to grow and evolve. And I get so much self-satisfaction seeing former players around town, at the filling station, the barbershop. . . . Even as football coaches at area high schools. ``Why would I ever want to leave Summerville? It's a wonderful community, with wonderful fans and great support. It's my family. I have everything I've always wanted right here.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to discuss an issue to be voted on in the morning, a resolution of disapproval of the FCC, increasing 35 to 45 percent ownership, and, more than that, the cross-ownership at the local level. Also, I would like to start paying for the war. I take it the Senator wants to pay for the war. We have the poor GI down in Baghdad. We hope each day he does not get killed, and the reason is we want him to hurry back so we can give him the bill. We ain't going to pay for it, but we need a tax cut so we can get reelected next year. That is what is going on in this town. Every time I go home, I am again embarrassed. I want to talk to that point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, ma'am.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I admire my distinguished colleague from California. She is a fighter. She has a conscience, and she is dedicated. I am delighted to listen to her. I agree with her absolutely.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a no-no subject-- taxes. I get really worn out when I go home and hear the local folks are against taxes. I came to public service over 50 years ago when there was a conscience of paying the bill for the Government we provided. I will never forget, one of the first measures we had come before us was a veterans' bonus for the World War II veterans. I can see Julian Dusenberry, a Member from Florence, whose legs had been shot out from under him. He was a Distinguished Service Cross recipient. He raised himself up on those brass bars we had at the back of the Chamber for him, and he said: Mr. Speaker, we all are veterans, but we are all South Carolinians. South Carolina doesn't have the money, and I move to table the bill. And we killed the veterans' bonus. It was shortly thereafter that I could see we were not providing public education in a general sense for all of our constituency. More particularly, there were just absolutely no schools for African Americans. I went to one shortly after I was elected. It was a one- square building, one floor. It was a cold November day. They had a potbellied stove in the middle, a class in one corner, a class in another corner, a class in the third corner, and a class in the fourth corner. This African American school had one teacher for the four classes. So I introduced the sales tax to pay for education. It was a 3 percent sales tax, and we finally enacted it in 1951. It was quite a struggle, but nobody has really contested that measure, nor has anyone put in a bill to repeal it. We have to pay for the public schools. Under Governor Riley--he was Secretary of Education--we increased that from 3 to 5 percent. When I came in as Governor of South Carolina, some 40 years ago, we had to attract industry. Everybody was looking for jobs. I am sort of an expert at looking for jobs. I traveled the highways and byways, but before I did that, I prepared myself to sell the point. I knew they were not going to invest in South Carolina, unless we had a pay-as-you- go operation. So I moved to increase taxes and got the AAA credit rating for the State of South Carolina back in 1959, before any Southern State, including the State of Virginia, had a AAA credit rating. I address the distinguished Chair because he gave real leadership to his State of Virginia when he was Governor. He knows exactly what we are talking about. In fact, the gentleman we had in South Carolina went back up to Richmond, VA, to help in industrial expansion. So we worked together trying to develop public education, strong communities, and fiscal responsibility at the State level. But you can come up here to Washington and you can forget about it. I saw one article the other day that was put in the Record relative to President Lyndon Baines Johnson. It said he didn't care. Oh, no, he did. He didn't give us guns and butter. He paid in 1968 and 1969 for the Vietnam War. The last time your U.S. Government balanced the budget was under President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1968-1969. We ended up in the black with a surplus. Thereafter, as chairman of the Budget Committee under President Carter I can tell you, we still had a conscience. I will never forget that 1980 election. They cleaned out Democrats. I went to the ones who were cleaned out and said: Look, you have to give me a vote. We can't leave this year with a deficit bigger than the one we inherited from President Ford. I went to Senator Magnuson, I went to Senator Church, I went to Senator Culver, I went to Senator McGovern, I went to Senator Bayh, I went to Senator Gaylord Nelson--all defeated in 1980. I said: You have to give me one vote. They did, and we reduced that deficit. Then, of course, when President Reagan came in with voodoo, which Vice President Bush called it, the idea is to cut your taxes and that will increase your revenue. That is absolute nonsense. We know now from voodoo 1, 2, 3, and 4 that we are in the worst trouble we have ever been. That is why I take the floor today to speak generally with respect to taxes. All politicians are against taxes. In fact, some are so adamant against them, they run against the Government, they run against the job they are running for. But taxes are what we pay for a civilized society, said Oliver Wendell Holmes. Let's try, Mr. President, a nation without taxes, just momentarily. Let's agree, for example, to not touch Social Security and Medicare-- they are both in surplus. In fact, everybody wants to save Social Security. If you just left it alone and quit spending the Social Security revenues on any and everything but Social Security, you would have a $1.5 trillion surplus in the Social Security trust fund, which the Greenspan Commission called for and which we passed in law, section 13-301 of the Budget Act, that we totally ignore now. So let's leave Social Security, Medicare, and Defense alone. But let's take all the other things government does with taxpayer dollars and get rid of them so we can get rid of taxes. The Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and Education would immediately be abolished. We would eliminate the FBI. We would stop building roads or fixing the ones we have. We would do away with the hospitals receiving Federal support, eliminate the National Institutes of Health, and close all the Veterans Hospitals. We would close the monuments and the parks, decertify the food certified by the Food and Drug Administration, decertify the drugs for the same reason, eliminate all the farm programs. When one mentions farm programs, they can get some attention in this body. That is the crowd that does not want to pay for anything, but they wiggle their way in and walk away with billions every time, every session. They always get billions, but let's do away with the farm programs, eliminate the development programs, forget about clean air, clean water, just close the Environmental Protection Administration; cancel NOAA, cancel NASA, cancel the housing programs, close the airports because they are supported by Federal taxes. In fact, just close the prisons. Tell all the prisoners, sooey, pig, just get out. Just shoo, get out. Get rid of the President, get rid of the Congress, the Cabinet, the courts. Just get rid of the government. I talked to a group in South Carolina and finally got their attention that we are lucky to be born in America where there is a government supported by the taxes that helps provide our opportunities. For example, someone born in Zambia can expect to live to only 37 years of age; born in Swaziland, 38 years; born in Rwanda, 39 years; Mozambique, 40 years; Niger, where someone found yellow cake, he lives to be 41 years of age. If I had been born in Niger, I would have been dead already for 40 years. I do not want to give that idea out to a lot of people listening to what I am talking about. Eighty percent of those born today in rural India have worms. Eighty- five percent will go hungry and 95 percent in rural India will drink dirty water all of their lives. One born today in Botswana has a one in three chance of getting AIDS, and someone born in Mali instead of the United States has only a 10-percent chance of completing the first grade. One born in Brazil has a 40-percent chance of dropping out of school by the sixth grade. A girl born in Pakistan has less than a 10- percent chance of attending high school. In Senegal one has only a 50- percent chance of finding a job. In Sri Lanka, one can expect to earn only 40 cents an hour; Haiti, 30 cents an hour; Bangladesh, 20 cents an hour. So one born in many countries instead of the good old USA, they cannot vote, they have no labor rights, they cannot even assemble. We all like to think, wait a minute now, we all came up by our own bootstraps; that we did it on our own. No. If one is born in America, the government has furnished the boot. The government in America has furnished the law and order, educational opportunity, a market economy, clean air, clean water, civil rights, labor rights, a free society. Born in America, as Thomas Wolfe wrote, each has his own shining golden opportunity. Because of this land of opportunity, supported by taxes, Asians come hidden in containers on ships, and Mexican immigrants risk their lives every day to get here. Some will say we do not need the taxes. What we need is spending cuts. I say to my dear colleagues, spending cuts will not do it. I think that is the thrust of the point that I hope sobers this crowd up. It worries them, as it worries me. Even if Congress eliminated every nondefense Government program, it would not get us out of the deficit hole. Every American should refer to page 8 of the Congressional Budget Office Budget and Economic Outlook Update. I ask unanimous consent that page 8 and page 10 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. If we turn to page 8, we will see that nondefense outlays for this particular fiscal year that we are in is 419 billion bucks. But if we turn to page 10, we will see that the deficit for this fiscal year is $640 billion. So do not just cut. Eliminate all nondefense programs, eliminate all those departments, prisons, the FBI, the Congress, the courts, the President. Just eliminate everything. Get rid of it. And we still have a $200 billion dollar or more deficit. So do not come around in these debates and give these nice, pleasant, Chamber of Commerce, rotary club talks that what we really need in Washington is to cut down the spending, cut down the size of Government, Government is just too big. Well, by gosh, come on up here and just cut it out, and there is still a deficit. So we have over a $200 billion deficit right there and then, and now comes President Bush who says he needs $87 billion--like we have some money. We are just nothing but wallowing around in the red using credit cards, and so he asks that the Congress provide $87 billion more for Iraq. Of course, that is all on the credit card further, a bigger deficit. It is really a sin and a shame. What we are saying is, me and my generation and most of the generations of the Members that I see and who can speak this evening say we ain't going to pay the bill. We do not want that GI in downtown Baghdad to get killed. We want him to rush back to pay the bill because we ain't going to pay for it. We need a tax cut so next year we can get reelected. That is the message of everybody running around with flags on their lapels showing how they support the troops. Well, come on. Support the troops? When are they going to cosponsor my value-added tax? I tried it with the value-added tax after we failed with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. We worked with President Reagan in a bipartisan fashion and we did a good job momentarily for 2 or 3 years, but then instead of using Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to cut back some $35 billion in spending each and every year, we were using it as a cover to increase spending $35 billion each and every year. So I said give me a divorce from that. I don't want my name connected with it. I got hold of Dick Darman, when President George Herbert Walker Bush, the senior Bush, took office. Darman was the OMB Director. I said: Dick, we ought to have a value-added tax. They discussed it. I got a little note from Papa Bush to the effect that he might consider that but not right now, his first year in office. We tried and tried until we got to President Clinton. Then we had a showdown on how to act responsibly. Without a single Republican vote in the House, without a single Republican vote in the Senate, President Clinton and this Democratic Congress passed an increase in taxes as well as spending cuts. We cut some $350 billion to $400 billion in spending, but we increased taxes on the high and wealthy. We increased the income taxes. We increased gasoline taxes. We increased Social Security taxes. I will never forget the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Phil Gramm, saying they were going to be hunting down the Democrats in the streets and shooting us like dogs when they found out we were, by gosh, going to increase taxes on Social Security. But you see now that rich crowd comes in, and what they want and all they ask for is: Give me an income tax cut. Give me a retroactive one, nunc pro tunc. They sneaked in all kinds of things for Kenny Boy Lay. It came to $250 million. I have never seen such things. Then they wanted to get rid of the taxes on dividends. I want the party of Lincoln to remember that Abraham Lincoln put a tax on dividends to pay for the Civil War. He was willing to pay for the war. We have paid for every war, until now. Let me be brief here because I can see the hour is getting late. Rather than going into this very interesting article by the former Secretary of Labor, Dr. Robert B. Reich, printed in USA Today entitled ``Tax wealthy to pay for Iraq war,'' I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Secretary Reich, he wants to tax the 1 percent most wealthy. He says that will get us $87 billion. I am for doing away with all of President Bush's tax cuts so we can get jobs and the economy going, as we did under President Clinton. When we passed that, back in 1993, we had 8 years of the finest economic growth that you have ever seen. We put the Government back in the black, and we did it by increasing taxes. Now they say to put it back in the black, give the rich a tax cut.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me address the particular resolution for disapproval of the Federal Communication Commission's order relative to not only increasing media ownership from 35 percent to 45 percent but, more particularly, also eliminating cross-ownership rules so you can own everything. You can own the cable, you can own the television, you can own the newspaper, you can own the satellite and many stations and what have you, and, in the main, the networks own them. I hasten to add that I hold no brief for or difference with any of the 10 particular Federal Communications Commission Chairmen with whom I have served. I have served, it will be almost 37 years, beginning with Rosel Hyde back in 1966, to Dean Burch, to Richard Wiley, to Charles Ferris, to Mark Fowler, to Dennis Patrick, to Alfred Sikes, to James Quello, to Reed Hundt, to William Kennard. Ask any one of them. I got on the Commerce Committee and on the Subcommittee on Communications, when John Pastore of Rhode Island was the chairman of the subcommittee. For over 20-some years I have served as either chairman of that subcommittee or ranking member. Right to the point, I want to try to agree with our distinguished FCC chairman, Michael Powell. I tried my best to sit down and talk with him. I realized from the get-go that he was off on a toot because he was asked, just as he was coming into office, about the public interest. He was asked, at his maiden news conference, for his definition of the public interest. Powell joked: I have no idea. The term can mean whatever people want it to mean. It's an empty vessel in which people pour in whatever their preconceived views or biases are. I could see we would have trouble because here is a regulatory body to carry out the rules and regulations and the intent of the Congress to regulate, and here he is coming in and saying: No, no--market forces. The public interest is just something fanciful. It is an ``empty vessel,'' to use his characterization. Free market analysis does not apply to the broadcasting industry because of spectrum scarcity; that is, the primary local broadcast is the primary source for local news, weather, public affairs programming, and emergency information. When we had the 1996 act, it actually was a bill that I had worked on 2 years as chairman of the Commerce Committee. I can see George Mitchell, the majority leader, trying to get it up because we passed it out of the committee unanimously. We worked in a bipartisan fashion. He could not get it up. In desperation and frustration, he said: The first thing I am going to do when we convene next year is call up the Telecommunications Act. Of course we Democrats were beat. The Republicans took over. Senator Larry Pressler, the distinguished Senator, took over as chairman of the Commerce Committee and he put in the Republican version. But in conference--you can ask Tom Bliley, who was the Republican chairman in the House and I was working on the Senate side--that we more or less reconciled it to a bill that we had worked on literally for 4 years to promote competition. We realized we were into a dynamic environment, changing each day. We worded the language in there so it would not only deregulate but reregulate. Of course the distinguished Chairman Powell went along with every gimmick in the book, such as it didn't refer to data, and various other things that my colleague over on the House side, Billy Tauzin, put in, but we held up. Finally, the other day they put out an order relative to the ownership cap and the cross-ownership. Let's take 1 second with respect to the ownership cap. What happens is that we were really trying to hold it to the 25 percent. There were some in violation, in excess of that. They wanted to be able to reconcile themselves and come into conformance with the law itself and the rule. We got down to the base wire and everything else of that kind. There was not any question in our own minds that the 25 percent was enough ownership, because we could see how the radio was going at the particular time. We all know how radio has gone, where they can own 1,200 stations. When you get that kind of ownership, they can't just give numbers, you have to get control. I can't get any kind of local thing. It is all foreign. In fact, you are liable to get the weather out of India at your local hometown station. They are reading from some kind of report. We had a system that was actually checks and balances at the Federal Government level. In other words, in broadcasting, the content was provided by producers. The networks served as wholesalers and the local affiliates as distributors. Now the networks have come in and gotten their own programming. They have done away with the financial syndication rule. They have gotten into their own programming in vertical integration. The networks have been allowed to buy up stations, and they are buying them up like gangbusters. What we are going to have here is almost one branch of government trying to preserve localism in the public interest. It is not going to happen if this continues. It just threw everyone into turmoil. There isn't any question. On the House side, even though Chairman Tauzin opposed it vigorously, a bipartisan group put in the State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill that the 45-percent rule of the Federal Communications Commission be reversed and go back to 35 percent. We considered the same thing over at the markup of the State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill, and we included that same provision word for word. I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``How Michael Powell Could Have the Last Laugh,'' in this week's Business Week, which goes right to the cross-ownership, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we had the support of the National Association of Broadcasters with respect to the overall check of the 45 percent being turned back to the 35 percent and not go up to 45 percent. However, the station owners realized that money could control and they could be in a position where cross-ownership would be done away with. There is a lot of big money with these oligopolies coming in and buying up their stations, which would position them monetarily and enhance the value of their station. We don't have the support of the National Association of Broadcasters on that cross-ownership. But the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, has it in as a resolution of disapproval. I am a cosponsor. Senator Lott and many of our Republican colleagues are also cosponsors. We discharged that one out from the Commerce Committee. The Stevens-Hollings authorization bill on the return of 45 percent from the 35 percent has been reported and is pending at the desk for consideration. I think the appropriations process is the only way that we can proceed. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from USA Today from this morning entitled ``FCC's Powell keeps chin up as regulation storm rages.''

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you can see, as they say in this article, that Chairman Powell is defiant. He says that it would spawn chaos. It wasn't chaos. We had some competition. In fact, Senator McCain and I are trying to reregulate the radio stations, bring them back and do away with the ownership and make them divest to a certain number. But he says the commissioners now ought to have the views of the public. That is very interesting. Mr. President, now Michael Powell is going to have a task force designed to prevent any media company from having excess power over competition or viewpoints. He does that after two of the commissioners begged for public hearings. They literally begged. They were told they did not have money enough, and they could only hold one hearing. That hearing was held in Richmond. From their own particular little budget, they had 13 hearings. Now a firestorm has erupted. You not only have the National Rifle Association and consumer groups, but you have the people of authority and respect such as Walter Cronkite and Barry Diller. You can go right on down the list all saying this is the worst thing that could possibly happen. The interesting thing is that Commissioner Powell says they have ``produced a balanced structural rule faithful to the directors of Congress.'' Total, total applesauce--applesauce and baloney. I can tell you that we begged and we coached. I thought maybe it was a personality difference. I get along with his father, Secretary Powell. In fact, he and I received honorary degrees at Tuskeegee together. He calls me Dr. Hollings. I call him Dr. Powell. I have provided him every red cent he has ever wanted for State Department appropriations as Secretary of State. I have that particular appropriations. But Michael Powell is a different character entirely. He is very competent, very smart, and very intelligent, but not a regulator. He just believes that the public interest is an empty vessel and the market forces should control. When he says ``faithful to the directors of Congress,'' that is exactly what he has not been. He has been totally unfaithful. We begged him to hold up the order. This particular reference in the order itself shows that he thinks they need big hearings on localism. Why didn't he hold up the order before he had the task force, before he had the hearings? The task force will make legislative recommendations to Congress to strengthen localism. We fought like tigers to try to get him to listen, and he just absolutely would not listen. Mr. President, quoting from this morning's Wall Street Journal: Entertainment giants such as Viacom, NBC parent General Electric Co. and Walt Disney Co., which owns ABC, now reach more than 50 percent of the prime-time television audience through their combined broadcast and cable outlets. The total rises to 80 percent, if you include the parents of newer networks--such as News Corp.'s FOX and AOL, Time-Warner, Inc.'s WB--and NBC's pending acquisition of Vivendi Universal SA's cable assets, estimates Tom Wolzien, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. The big media companies are quietly re-creating the ``old programming oligopoly'' of the pre-cable era, notes Mr. Wolzien, a former executive of NBC. Of the top 25 cable channels, 20 are now owned by 1 of the big 5 media companies. They own each other. You talk to Chairman Powell, and he says, Look, cable is going to be taken over and there won't be any free broadcast. The free broadcaster is the one who owns the cable. He is totally off base. He just will not regulate. An order for localism is a sham and a farce. The American people ought to understand it and they ought to understand why we do not have the support of the National Association of Broadcasters. They want to enhance the value of their individual stations. They see if you can get the cross-ownership, the value of their station locally. One of the big oligarchies will give an inordinate price and they can go to Virginia Beach, the sun, take it easy, and will not have to worry. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senate at this late hour. I only ask that you give close attention to the bipartisan Dorgan-Lott resolution, that we disapprove it, and put us back to where we were before they started a feeding frenzy, according to all the stockbrokers in the market in New York, ready to buy up all the rest of the stations as soon as it becomes effective. It has been stayed by the court. Rather than causing chaos, it will bring us back and maybe we can find out from the task force of localism, of Chairman Powell, what really needs to be done, what the public interest is. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I am delighted to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. HOLLINGS. 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.

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.

Mr. HOLLINGS. 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.