Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be delighted to yield.

Mr. HOLLINGS. According to the Concord Coalition--let me refer first to them--you have diminished revenues $3.12 trillion in 3 years and three tax cuts. I know the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma doesn't want to refer to the loss of all those revenues. But when the market sees that, they say: Well, wait a minute. Yes, you can cut the interest rate a quarter of a point under Alan Greenspan. But that means the Government will be crowding the financial market with its sharp elbows crowding out corporate finance, and they freeze in place. And we run huge deficits in the balance of trade. We are running trade deficits of $500 billion, that is $1.5 billion a day. The foreign investors who helped cause that bubble are frozen in place. Then the poor worker finds as he opens his mouth that his job has gone overseas, so he gets lockjaw and freezes in place. This is not like Jack Kennedy who inherited almost a balanced budget. We started this fiscal year with $428 billion in budget deficits from last year. This year, it is $698 billion, according to the President of the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. It only lasted for 3 years.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right, $698 billion--spending Social Security tax moneys. That is the revenues. That is how they get to the $455 billion on page 1. But let me point this out because we were here in 1983, and the distinguished Chair remembers this, we had the Greenspan commission. That really started over on the House side with our good friend Wilbur Mills, who had been chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He upped the ante along with President Nixon, decimating the trust fund. So by the end of the 1970s we appointed the Greenspan commission. After a 3-year study, they came with section 21. It says we are going to have an inordinate increase in payroll taxes, graduated up so as to take care of the baby boomers in the next generation. Section 21 says: And put this money in trust and don't spend it on anything but Social Security. Now my friend from Florida, what happens is, it took us from 1983 to 1990, I think it was. It was on November 5, 1990, George Walker Herbert Bush, President Bush's father, he signed into law section 13301. Section 13301 of the Budget Act, says: You shall not report a budget, either the President or the Congress, spending Social Security trust funds on anything other than Social Security. We put that into law and they continued to violate it. They continued to spend it. That is 13301. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 2 for that particular provision. It is in the law today, in the Budget Act. But that is what they are doing. That is when the distinguished President started off and he took office in 2001 and he said: I am setting aside $2.3 trillion to take care of the needs of Social Security. He was following through on a pledge that he made in the campaign. But we spend Social Security moneys on any and everything but Social Security, and run around like a dog chasing his tail saying we have to fix Social Security, we have to fix Social Security, we have to fix it, and they have all kinds of plans: invest in the stock market, get an IRA, take this percent, that percent, retire early, don't retire--you know, on and on. All they need do is obey section 13301 of the law, the Budget Act, and not spend Social Security revenues on anything and everything but Social Security. That is all they have to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, 10,000 fresh, juicy peaches from my home State have been delivered to offices throughout the Senate, House, and U.S. Capitol. I want to thank the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation and the South Carolina Peach Council for giving my colleagues and their staffs this taste of South Carolina. For a tiny State, South Carolina is second only to California in peach production. This year we expect to harvest 130 million pounds, and because of all the rain the peaches are plumper and juicier than they have ever been. So with all due respect to my colleagues from Georgia, South Carolina is known as the ``Tastier Peach State'' for good reason. I hope as all of us enjoy these peaches, we think about the farmers who get up early every morning and labor all summer in the heat and humidity to bring us this. We are so fortunate to have in this country safe, plentiful, and affordable fresh fruit and vegetables and none of us should ever take that for granted. Finally, I remind the rest of America to ask for South Carolina peaches at their groceries.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Enron alone hit 11 insurance companies for $350 million in director and officer claims. Enron's bankruptcy also cost St. Paul $10 million in surety bond losses and $12 million in unsecured debt insurers held in the energy company. AIG has announced a $1.8 billion charge in part to deal with claims for both Enron and WorldCom. All of this was on top of 9/11 which cost insurers $40 billion in losses. Now, we find 9/11 and Enron. Kenny Boy is responsible for the losses. It is not medical malpractice. In fact, in all of the cases, only 1 out of 9, or 12 percent, of the cases actually go to court. Some 26 percent of that small percentage actually are tried. The verdicts are up instead of down. But now we find out from where they come. I have another article in the final edition of the Gannett Corporation on Friday, January 3, 2003. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it says: Hoping to cut loose the Enron albatross, J.P. Morgan Chase early Thursday settled a legal dispute with 11 insurance firms that had accused the Wall Street bank of engaging in sham financial deals with the collapsed energy-trading firm. As part of the settlement, Travelers Property Casualty could pay up to $159 million; Chubb's Federal Insurance, $110 million; Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, $94 million; Allianz's Firemen's Fund, $93 million; St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance, $80 million; CNA Financial's Continental Casualty and National Fire Insurance, $47 million; Safeco, $33 million; Hartford Financial Services, $25 million; and Liberty Mutual Insurance, $13 million. Let us talk about those losses. Where do we go? I quote from an article dated June 30 in U.S. News and World Report. The case of Samuel Desiderio, while tragic, seems to give perfect voice to the complaints of many doctors who see a legal system gone wild. As a 4-year-old, he suffered brain damage following surgery at a New York City hospital. A state court jury awarded him a hefty $80 million for medical expenses and pain and suffering. In April, just two months ago, an appeals court approved boosting the award against his doctors and the hospital to an astonishing $140 million. But as Joan Butsko's modest award suggests, caps may not be the answer. Insurance costs are up, but it's not clear that juries or the courts are the culprits, or even that the crisis is as dire as it's being portrayed. The statistics don't line up as neatly as doctors and insurers would have them, and left out of the argument is recognition that ordinary market forces may be at work instead. For starters, there's no explosion of cases that might drive up legal costs. The number filed each year has remained fairly steady during the past decade, according to the National Center for State Courts. Further, most malpractice plaintiffs never even see a jury--two thirds of their cases are dropped or dismissed--and when they do, it often isn't a sympathetic one. Only a tiny sliver of cases filed--just 0.9 percent of some 5,500 cases surveyed for 2002--produce jury verdicts for patients claiming injury. And even the size of that small wedge is down by half since 2000, according to the Physicians Insurers Association of America, the trade group for malpractice insurers owned or operated by doctors, which account for about 60 percent of the market. Within that wedge, the number of payments that doctors' insurers make following jury verdicts has held steady in recent years, at around 400 annually, according to a U.S. News review of hundreds of thousands of payments of all kinds reported to the federal National Practitioner Data Bank. These payments total about $143 million each year. Malpractice insurers are required by law to report their payouts to the system. Doctors and insurers say that frequency of claims aside, the prime issue is the size of awards. Indeed, the size of insurer payments stemming from jury verdicts has been increasing in recent years, U.S. News has found; in 2002 it reached a median of $295,000. But, that's far below the median jury award of $1 million the AMA and others often cite. Even assuming two defendants per case--a number insurers say is typical--plus other adjustments, the median payment remains hundreds of thousands of dollars short of the $1 million figure. But it's not clear that verdicts are really the whip behind settlements. Over time, the size of a typical settlement payment has grown somewhat faster than a typical jury verdict payment. And while the sum from jury awards has remained stable over the past decade, the total of payouts from settlements has soared, especially recently, when doctors say the crisis has emerged. Mr. President, that is what punitive damages do. They really set the pace. Dickie Scruggs and Ron Motley, the trial lawyers in the tobacco case, did more to cure people of cancer or prevent people from getting cancer than Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler. I have been in the vanguard since Warren Magnuson had me have cancer hearings all the way back in 1967 and 1968. And over the years, we have tried everything in the world to stop people from smoking. If my time is up, I ask unanimous consent for 10 additional minutes, Mr. President.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. My most respected colleague from Texas said it is not about doctors and it is not about insurance companies. I would have to dissent from that view from the standpoint of my experience over some 30 years dealing with this particular problem. We started in the early 1970s with my good friend Victor Schwartz. Product liability was the style of the day, the crisis. The Little Leaguers could not play anymore at the playgrounds. Football was going to have to be abolished because they could not buy safe helmets. They were all being sued because of the helmets. We faced down the situation of so-called product liability and tort reform with the help of the National Legislative Association, the National Governors Association, and some others. We went to Y2K. We would go to terrorism insurance. I resisted, being an old States righter. I have an unusually good insurance commissioner in South Carolina. In fact, we have low rates as a result of his administration. But from a studied view of this particular situation, the problem is, yes, the doctors and, yes, the insurance companies. Why do I say that? Well, according to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr. Thompson, there are 100,000 deaths a year in America as a result of medical malpractice. That is people killed. That is casualties. We had 58,000 people killed over 10 years, just about, in Vietnam. Now, the doctors have to get ahold of themselves in the State of West Virginia, for example. There are some 40 doctors, I think it is, who account for some 25 percent, one-fourth, of the 2,300 malpractice claims. Incidentally, they are moving down to South Carolina because I have talked to some of my doctor friends. There is no better friend of medicine than this Senator from South Carolina. I have worked with them closely over the many years I have been in the National Government, and as their Governor. We have a very disciplined, one might call it, medical practice in South Carolina. In fact, they have always told me, and again recently affirmed, that if we had the average licensed doctors of some of the other States we would immediately add 1,000 doctors. In other words, it is not easy to practice medicine in the State of South Carolina. So we go immediately to the doctors disciplining themselves like the lawyers, and I can get example after example of us at the bar association disciplining the lawyers. Unfortunately, the doctors just recently returned now to that particular practice and they are beginning to see that they are having to pay for the whole thing. Otherwise, it is not tort reform; it is insurance reform. The distinguished Senator from Texas mentioned California. I have heard, and it is true, that California has brought down the malpractice insurance rates for the doctors there. That was done with caps in the beginning, but it did not work--in 1975. And it wasn't until 1988 that they had Proposition 103, to institute insurance reform--not tort reform but insurance reform, where they had an immediate rollback of the rates of some 25 percent, regulation written by the insurance commission, and anyone who wanted to question any rate increase had a right before the commission to petition and be heard. So, yes, there is a way to do it. But you will see, as I speak here this afternoon, it is not this tort reform. In fact, tort reform is being taken care of in the States. They are moving fast. They are already moving in the State of Illinois, as the distinguished Senator Durbin has been pointing out, with respect to that, and other States have not waited. The only trouble with the cap is that it has not brought down the rates. The cap States--I mentioned Illinois that has no cap. The rates are up there. But four of the first five--Florida, Michigan, Texas, West Virginia--these four of the five top States with the highest premiums have caps on damages. So the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have experienced this with caps. I have other examples to show. Time and again, the insurance executives say: Pass the caps, we are not going to lower the rates. But the majority leader, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, is one of the most eminent physicians. And I don't say that just speaking on the floor in a right fashion. He saved the life of a good friend of mine with a lung transplant back in Tennessee. She has been getting along extremely well as a result of the expertise, the touch, the sensitivity, the bedside manner of Dr. Frist. So there is no question in this body that we have a very valued doctor friend as a Senator from Tennessee. But Tennessee doesn't have that problem. Of course, there are no caps there. They are below the median in premiums, and they do not have damage caps. I am sure the distinguished doctor/Senator would long since have asked that his State move in that direction if that were the problem. No, the problem is a political one. We have the doctors in town. It is almost like the computer crowd who came to town with Y2K, and the sky was going to fall--we had to immediately pass Y2K to make sure at the first of the century the world wouldn't end. We have a similar situation now where we look for the needs of the campaign rather than the needs of the country. We call this bill, right in the middle of the energy bill, appropriations bill, and all the other important matters that we have, tort reform, medical malpractice, because the doctors are in town. I guess instead of $2,000, those doctors could give $4,000 to political campaigns, so you might call this the $4,000 bill we will be voting on tomorrow morning, as to whether or not we should have cloture. I hope we do have cloture because we ought to nail this buzzard quickly and get rid of it. You never hear anybody who has been represented as a result of medical malpractice complain about the fee. It is always the loser who complains about a plaintiff's fee. I never have found a plaintiff yet who complained about lawyers' fees. That gets me right into lawyers because that is the pollster cancer we have in Government in Washington today. You get the pollsters--and they don't know. I never have found a pollster, incidentally, who ever served in government or public office. So they do not know the questions to ask, What about lawyers? Shouldn't we have tort reform? Of course, the Chamber of Commerce has us behaving like toadies for corporate America, doing everything they want because we want their money in order to run for office. So we only pay attention to the money needs and the campaign needs and not the needs of the country. As far as tort reform is concerned, it is being taken care of at the State level. The big problem, of course, is the losses that have been, not from medical malpractice, incidentally, but from their investments. Let's say a word about those lawyers because, after all, we just had the Fourth of July. I saw a program about the forefathers. They were all mentioning the different ones who brought us this 227 years of freedom. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be bought at the price of chains of liberty and freedom? I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. A lawyer said that. I can see that 34-year-old Jefferson, with the quill in hand: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Equal justice under law, with the Declaration of Independence. What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. We are out of control: We have a $428 billion budget deficit, after talking about the surplus, surplus, and surpluses for 2 years. The public debt to the penny is $428 billion, and we have not finished the fiscal year. Madison, the lawyer, the Emancipation Proclamation--Abraham Lincoln, the lawyer. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the lawyer. You go right on down the line, giving meaning to equal justice under law. Thurgood Marshall, the lawyer. These were eminent lawyers and not jury fixers. We have 60,000 lawyers working on K Street. I am one of the 60,000 licensed to practice in the District of Columbia. There are 60,000, and 59,000 will never see the courtroom of law. They are supposed to fix the 535 of us lawmakers here in Government. They are salesmen. I delight in seeing them. They are a big help because we have to have the proceedings, and I listen to both sides and I make up my mind. But they are, under the bill at hand that has been introduced, not limited in their fees. They sit there claiming frivolity. If you are a trial lawyer, you get the client who comes in. You have to perhaps get the doctor for him, get the medicine. Then if you get the case, get out on the highway, get some pictures and everything else like that, get the experts, draw up the pleadings. After the pleadings are drawn, make all the motions, the interrogatories, and discoveries. Still you haven't gotten a red cent. Time passes on, and what happens is you get to the trial and, after all the trial and the motions in the trial, you have to win all 12 jurors. And after the 12, you have to make the motions on appeal, you have to print up the briefs, you have to go and make the arguments before the appellate court. Then, if you finally win--if you finally win, yes, you get a good fee. But you probably spent a couple of years or more waiting around. And that is the practice of the trial bar. I have been in it. I have also defended. And they are lazy. Man, they are lazy. I have seen them. They just absolutely sit there and let the runners and investigators do all the work, call that doctor and do this and do that, and then if it is inconvenient, they say: We have a witness who is sick, and we will move for a continuance--because, why? The clock runs. The clock runs, and they get, what, $450 an hour? I remember when I passed the first textile bill here, a Senator on the other side of the aisle came and said: I know a lawyer downtown who has been paid $1 million to get that bill passed, and he didn't do anything. Here you are, a freshman Senator, and you passed it. I said: Yes, and I passed it for free because I believe in it. But you have big fees down here. The clock runs with this corporate crowd, just look at the bill. They say: Oh, no, no--they have no control over their fees. Just control the trial lawyers--with tort reform. You have the biggest myth on the courts we have ever experienced. Let's go, since my time is limited, to the truth about malpractice premiums. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners: Total profits as a percentage of premiums for 1999 [that is the most recent year for which data is available] are nearly twice as high in the medical malpractice line than the casualty and property insurance industry coverage. Recent price increases are merely an attempt by the insurance industry to maintain the extremely high level of profitability for malpractice coverage. If that is all the profits, where are the losses? This is Enron. This is Kenny Boy. The Justice Department spent 2\1/2\ years and they can't get him. They have gotten everybody in the world. They have gotten WorldCom all the way through the courts up to the SEC and reaffirmed their bankruptcy plan, but you haven't heard any more about Kenny Boy. Listen to what this says: When terrorists slammed airplanes into the World Trade Center in 2001, the Donaldson Co. in Bloomington felt the blow almost immediately. The manufacturer's property insurance renewed just days later, with nasty surprises. Our premium quadrupled from $500,000 to $2 million. I ask unanimous consent to have this article from the Metro edition of the Star Tribune in Minneapolis printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. People talk about those two lawyers and say, ``Look at all the fees they got.'' I say look at all the good they did. Over the many years, we have had the American Cancer Society, we have had fundraisers, we have had cancer institutes, we have had all kinds of research and everything else like that, but how do you stop people from smoking? When they got that 360-some-billion-dollar settlement with the Government, the Attorney General, the medical community, and everybody concerned, and the State attorneys general, that failed to pass the Senate, so it was taken up, and I think it was $232 billion that the States settled for. That money is being paid out. In many States they have programs to teach youngsters to avoid smoking. I go to the heart of the Pee Dee in South Carolina where they grow tobacco, and you will see a big sign on the courthouse that says: ``No smoking.'' Now, that really got me. Those two lawyers really deserve every dime they get out of the legal fees. They had been bringing cases upon cases upon cases, and I think their average victory was some 4 in 100 cases. They just lost another case down in Charleston last year. Of course, there have been ridiculous verdicts, like in Florida, where the punitive damages is somewhere around $27 million, but had been $145 billion. Well, that was a six-man jury and a judge who did not know what they were doing. That was just a seven-man conspiracy. I agree, it was wild and unjustified. My point is, these trial lawyers are really doing a wonderful service. I can go to the class actions, I can go to the asbestos cases. The onslaught has got to be stopped here on this so-called tort reform because it is totally political. It is totally campaign funds. It is totally the election next year and not the needs of the country. Mr. President, that is what is going on, and colleagues have to wake up and realize we have a President who runs off to Africa, who has not settled Afghanistan, who does not know where he is in Iraq. All he knows is the election is next year, in November. So there we are. We are being put upon with not the needs of the country but, frankly, with the needs of the campaign. I have an article here dated September 7 of last year from the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We really are in trouble. I have in my own State the widow of a physician who worked at a hospital in Columbia, where her husband died after surgery. They had to sue as a result of his death. How can we, the Congress, solve this problem? Let the doctors discipline the doctors. They are going to have to do it on the one hand. And let's have insurance reform. Yes, the Durbin-Graham approach is salutary in that it does away with the fixing of rates. That ought to be done away with. But the only way to really get at the problem itself is what they did in California with proposition 103 that passed in 1988 and that is to regulate the rates themselves. You can get the information only then from the insurance companies, and I have tried my best as a member of the Commerce Committee, subject to insurance jurisdiction, to try to again and again, year in and year out. And the insurance companies won't tell you anything because they say they are State regulated and we have no jurisdiction whatsoever over them. If there is one thing that is engaged in interstate commerce, it is insurance. Let's don't just go with terrorism insurance, and just tax credits to pay the premiums, and patchwork little Band-Aids on this problem. Let's get to the real heart of the problem. The insurance companies lost money. They lost it on Kenny Boy. And now the officers and directors of these corporations are being sued, and the rates have gone up with respect to corporate bad practice. The only way to get at it is insurance reform itself. We are just acting like a dog chasing its tail when we go on about tort reform, and the lawyer's fees, and joint and severable liability, and product liability. If they are real problems, every State has a legislature and they are subject to that jurisdiction. They can do it. But as far as insurance goes, I have worked with them. I have seen them, after 50 years of governmental service at every level. I had to clean up my own insurance department as Governor of South Carolina. I know it intimately. I can tell you that we have an insurance reform bill, and I want to work with my colleagues on this, for this is how to take care of the medical malpractice increase in premiums. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, last night with the passing of our revered colleague, Senator Strom Thurmond, I indicated I would have a longer recount of his work. The Nation has lost one of its most distinguished and longest-serving public servants, my State has lost its greatest living legend, and I would like to add to my comments. By any measure, Senator Thurmond ranks as a giant of modern American politics. Few people in recent memory have had greater influence on the shape and substance of American politics, and few elected officials have shown themselves more devoted to serving the people of their State and nation. There was no more hard-working politician in America than Senator Thurmond. Right up to the day he retired from the Senate, he remained devoted to his constituents. Of course, any discussion of Senator Thurmond's political and legislative legacy ultimately turns to a discussion of Senator Thurmond the man. He was one of the most amazing men anyone in this Chamber ever has met. He was what we attorneys call ``sui generis.'' When God made Strom, He broke the mold for sure. Merely listing all of Senator Thurmond's ``firsts'' conveys the prodigious energies and talents of the man. In 1929, he began his political career by becoming the youngest person ever elected Superintendent of Education in Edgefield County, South Carolina. He entered state-wide politics in 1933, when he was elected to the State Senate. As a South Carolina Senator, he was known for his devotion to improving public education and promoting opportunities for the people of my State. His concern for the common man motivated many of his legislative efforts, such as writing the act that raised workers' compensation benefits and sponsoring South Carolina's first Rural Electrification Act. Although these efforts may seem far removed from our concerns today, they were crucial to my State at the time. He left the Senate in 1938 to become Judge Thurmond. Continuing his life-long love affair with politics and public service, he served as a South Carolina Circuit Judge until the United States entered the Second World War in 1941. Then Judge Thurmond took off his robe and volunteered for active duty. He enlisted despite the fact that, as a 39-year-old Circuit Judge, he was exempt from military service. He fought in five battles in 4 years, and on D-Day, he rode a glider into Normandy with the 82nd Airborne. For his wartime service, Senator Thurmond was awarded 18 decorations, including the Purple Heart, Bronze Star for Valor, and Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster. He remained in the Army Reserves after the War and was made Major General in 1959. After the war, he came home and ran for Governor. He was elected in 1947, and his administration was known for its progressive policies on education and infrastructure. During his tenure, 60,000 new jobs were created in the private sector, teacher pay was boosted to unprecedented levels, and the State Farmers' Market was begun. These initiatives helped start South Carolina on the road to a dynamic, modern economy. In 1948, Governor Thurmond ran for President on the States' Rights ticket. In 1954, he became the first person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in candidate. That election established him as a force in national politics and a giant in South Carolina. He was reelected to the Senate eight times, more than any Senator. When he left in January, he was the oldest and longest-serving Senator in U.S. history. He served as chairman of two powerful committees: Judiciary and Armed Services. In those capacities, he played an important role in keeping our national defense strong and ensuring the quality of our Federal judiciary. He took controversial stands on civil rights and other divisive issues, but over time he changed and ended up garnering the support of many of those whom he opposed. He will go down in history for his devotion to his constituents. Senator Thurmond also changed the course of politics in the South. His conversion to the Republican party in 1964 heralded a new age in party affiliation in the South and led the way for the region's transformation from a one-party, Democratic stronghold. Senator Thurmond is gone, but his legacy will live on for many lifetimes. The people of South Carolina loved him as they have loved no other politician. Today his loss is mourned across my state, by Democrats and Republicans alike. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in the Senate lament the loss of an admired colleague whose influence on this institution will stand for generations.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003. The Senate has spent the last 2 weeks debating how to help our Nation's senior citizens afford their prescription drugs. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that average annual out-of-pocket drug spending for Medicare beneficiaries grew from $644 3 years ago to $999 this year and will reach $1,454 by the time this bill takes effect in 2006. As a result, 25 percent of seniors without drug coverage declined to fill a prescription and 27 percent of seniors without drug coverage skipped doses to make their prescriptions last longer. This is unacceptable. These citizens deserve affordable, comprehensive, and reliable drug coverage. Unfortunately, the legislation now before us fails to provide sufficient coverage. From the outset this proposal will confuse seniors. Enrollees in private plans better not get too comfortable because their plans could be gone in 2 years if the HMOs find them unprofitable just like they have with Medicare+Choice in my state of South Carolina. The same goes for enrollees in fallback plans. They will be kicked out of their plan in as early as a year if enough private plans enter their area. This volatile system could force seniors to move in between three separate plans, with three separate formularies, in 3 years. This bill should create a sense of stability in the system and reduce the confusion over coverage. That is why I supported first the Stabenow amendment and then the Lincoln-Conrad amendment, which would have extended the availability of fallback plans to ensure that seniors will have access to stable drug coverage. Senior citizens will need to hire an accountant just to comprehend the benefits available to them under this legislation. Once seniors select their Medicare drug plan, they will have to maneuver a maze of premiums, deductibles and copayments for benefits that contain huge gaps in coverage. On top of their premiums, which will vary from region to region and plan to plan, seniors will get no help for the first $275 of their drug costs, pay half of costs from $276 to $4,500, pay all the costs from $4,501 to at least $5,813, and then pay a tenth of costs above $5,288. With a breakeven point of $1,115, many healthier Medicare beneficiaries will opt not to participate. With a coverage gap of $1,302, many of the sickest patients will still have to continue paying premiums even though they may have to resort to rationing their care until they can spend their way out of the ``doughnut.'' Once again, the Senate defeated a number of amendments that I supported that would have brought much needed simplicity and fairness to the bill including the Boxer amendment, which would have closed the coverage gap for all seniors, and the Daschle amendment, which would have limited the regional variation among premiums to 110 percent of the national average. Finally, we chose to provide $13 billion in new subsidies to PPOs and HMOs instead of using that money to reduce premiums or fill in the coverage gap for cancer or Alzheimer's patients. All in all, the bill provides Medicare beneficiaries with a benefit valued at about $1,000 less than the drug coverage available to Federal employees. This is a plan only Washington could dream up. It should come as no surprise that the authors of this convoluted mess and their friends in the White House have decided to wait until after the 2004 election before allowing Medicare beneficiaries to see what they are in for. I should also note that this Nation is more than $6.6 trillion in debt. This bill is part of budget resolution and economic plan that will run up an average deficit of $600 billion a year for the next 10 years. Make no mistake about it, we will borrow every red cent to pay for this program. And what do we get in return? Massive subsidies for HMOs, spotty drug coverage for senior citizens, and a lack of attention to the factors driving the rapid increase of health care costs in this country. If we are going to borrow from future generations to pay for this benefit, we should get it right. Now that we have disposed of all amendments and final passage appears imminent, I have concluded taxpayers and Medicare beneficiaries would be better served if we go back to the drawing board. We should come back with a proposal with affordable premiums and cost sharing requirements with no gaps in coverage that is administered in a manner that gives seniors the same sense of security they receive under the current Medicare program. I have heard many of my colleagues say this is an important first step and it is important that we get something on the books. Nonsense. Thirty months will pass before the first beneficiary receives coverage. That was enough time to draft and ratify the Constitution. It was enough time to complete the Manhattan Project. Thirty months should be more than enough time for us to create a real, meaningful prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens. I hope this body will have the wisdom to vote no and do this right.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my friend and colleague of 36 years in the Senate is gone. A giant oak in the forest of public service has fallen. I started with Senator Thurmond as a young law student in 1946 when he first ran for Governor and have been more or less with him over these many, many years. I will have a real recount of our work together later. That is the way it was even though we ended up on other sides of the aisle. There was never any doubt about the interests of South Carolina. We have all this argument going on now with respect, for example, to judges. He and I got together very early. We agreed when his President was in office from his particular party that he had the appointment, but he always asked me about it and, of course, I in turn asked him about it. We checked with each other. That is the kind of way we worked together over the some 36 years. I can say just a living legend of South Carolina now has been terminated. But I want to give Nancy and the children my heartfelt condolences. Peatsy and I have known them and been with them over the many, many years. I will have more to say at a later time. I thank the leadership for their recognition. I hope, perhaps, when we complete our work tonight, we might adjourn out of respect for our colleague.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is particularly important to me, in that it culminates nearly 30 years of efforts to preserve the wilderness of South Carolina for future generations of Americans. This legislation proposes to raise the designation of the Congaree Swamp National Monument to the Congaree National Park, and to increase its size by 20 percent. I still remember when my friend, Harry Hampton, enlisted my help to protect the big trees that were being destroyed 500 acres a year in the central part of my State. In 1976, Congress set aside 15,000 acres to establish the Congaree Swamp National Monument. In the late 1980s, we expanded it by another 7,000 acres. More recently, we've invested in a visitor center and this investment has far exceeded this Senator's expectations. The attendance has ballooned to 120,000 visitors every year, including some 12,000 students, who use the forest as their classroom to nature. It has awakened an interest in the environment for these children. They cruise the Congaree, learning how to identify trees, birds, animals, and everything like that. All kinds of groups take hikes, nature walks and canoe trips to see the almost 1,000 different types of trees, plants, animals, and birds in the forest. This is home to some of the tallest and rarest trees in the Eastern United States--some are 400 years old. It is home to the largest example of old growth southern hardwood forest in North America. All eight species of woodpeckers can be found here, including the endangered red-cockaded variety. Yet had Congress not acted back in 1976, none of this may be around today. We were able to save at least a few thousand acres of what once covered vast portions of the east coast, so future generations of Americans can enjoy it. There is a lesson here. The Government can do good for the environment. It is in the interest of our nation to protect our nation's treasures. My legislation, the Congaree National Park Act of 2003 continues the progress we have seen the last 25 years. It would add another 4,576 acres of ecologically rich land; and it would redesignate the Monument into a fullfledged National Park, which would be the first in South Carolina. The Congaree Swamp is widely recognized as one of the most unique and rare ecological habitats in the country. This designation not only recognizes the significance of this area but the wonderful job the National Park Service is doing to make this a growing attraction for local, State, national, and international visitors. The project has received support from a number of organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters of endorsement be printed in the Record. I hope to work on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues to pass the legislation this session.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is particularly important to me, in that it culminates nearly 30 years of efforts to preserve the wilderness of South Carolina for future generations of Americans. This legislation proposes to raise the designation of the Congaree Swamp National Monument to the Congaree National Park, and to increase its size by 20 percent. I still remember when my friend, Harry Hampton, enlisted my help to protect the big trees that were being destroyed 500 acres a year in the central part of my State. In 1976, Congress set aside 15,000 acres to establish the Congaree Swamp National Monument. In the late 1980s, we expanded it by another 7,000 acres. More recently, we've invested in a visitor center and this investment has far exceeded this Senator's expectations. The attendance has ballooned to 120,000 visitors every year, including some 12,000 students, who use the forest as their classroom to nature. It has awakened an interest in the environment for these children. They cruise the Congaree, learning how to identify trees, birds, animals, and everything like that. All kinds of groups take hikes, nature walks and canoe trips to see the almost 1,000 different types of trees, plants, animals, and birds in the forest. This is home to some of the tallest and rarest trees in the Eastern United States--some are 400 years old. It is home to the largest example of old growth southern hardwood forest in North America. All eight species of woodpeckers can be found here, including the endangered red-cockaded variety. Yet had Congress not acted back in 1976, none of this may be around today. We were able to save at least a few thousand acres of what once covered vast portions of the east coast, so future generations of Americans can enjoy it. There is a lesson here. The Government can do good for the environment. It is in the interest of our nation to protect our nation's treasures. My legislation, the Congaree National Park Act of 2003 continues the progress we have seen the last 25 years. It would add another 4,576 acres of ecologically rich land; and it would redesignate the Monument into a fullfledged National Park, which would be the first in South Carolina. The Congaree Swamp is widely recognized as one of the most unique and rare ecological habitats in the country. This designation not only recognizes the significance of this area but the wonderful job the National Park Service is doing to make this a growing attraction for local, State, national, and international visitors. The project has received support from a number of organizations, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters of endorsement be printed in the Record. I hope to work on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues to pass the legislation this session.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my hometown of Charleston, SC, maintains a special relationship with history. Rather than keeping history in books and museums for occasional viewing, the Charleston community celebrates its cultural heritage everyday, be it through our downtown district, our vibrant Market, or the skyline full of church steeples. This month, Charleston marks the 91st birthday of a man famous for his dedication to preserving our historic personality. Master blacksmith and legendary craftsman Philip Simmons practiced the art form of traditional ironwork throughout the 20th century. As he has been known to say, ``If you see ironwork curve like that, it's either two hundred years old, or I did it.'' Though he retired in 1990, Mr. Simmons now spends most of his time ensuring the tradition of classical ironwork lives on in South Carolina. John Paul Huguley, president of the Charleston School of the Building Arts, says what separates a craft worker from Mr. Simmons is that Mr. Simmons has a ``love for the trade and the desire to educate the next generation of artisans.'' Indeed, that is the case. Mr. Simmons was at the forefront of creating the School of the Building Arts. He now teaches classes there, and within 2 years the school will be open full time. Mr. Simmons also instructs at his blacksmith shop, and travels to lecture at southern art and building conferences. He has received numerous accolades over the years, including a ``lifetime achievement award'' from the South Carolina Legislature. He received a National Heritage Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts. His work has been displayed in the Natural Museum of American History, here in Washington. I hope members of this Chamber join me in recognizing and celebrating the birthday of a great man. No question, his role in the Charleston community, and beyond, is a standard for artistic excellence and public service that can be an example for us all.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would improve the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by allowing an additional advanced refunding of tax exempt bonds issued for the purchase or maintenance of electric generation, transmission, or distribution assets. This bill will give municipal utilities additional flexibility in refinancing their debts, so they can respond to favorable market conditions. I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objections, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that would improve the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by allowing an additional advanced refunding of tax exempt bonds issued for the purchase or maintenance of electric generation, transmission, or distribution assets. This bill will give municipal utilities additional flexibility in refinancing their debts, so they can respond to favorable market conditions. I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objections, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is said that editorialists can editorialize but can't take criticism. Not true. Chairman Donald Graham and editorial page editor Fred Hiatt readily accepted the following Washington Post editorial this morning for which I profoundly thank them. Otherwise, since I referred to Pete Peterson, in fairness let me also include his column in the Record. I ask unanimous consent the articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, we are in trouble. The Federal Communications Commission, by a three to two vote, is prepared to bring about monopolistic control of the news, monopolistic control of the media, monopolistic control of entertainment. Public interest rules for cross ownership and market control are being abolished and no one points this out more cogently than Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Editor in Chief, in the June 23, 2003 edition of the U.S. News and World Report. The Congress will be compelled to act if we are to save freedom of speech in this country. To understand the issues I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. I also commend to my colleagues the Columbia Journalism Review--www.cjr.org_of who owns what, listing the holdings of the five behemoths Viacom, News Corporation, AOL-Time Warner, Walt Disney Company and General Electric too much under the present rulings.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, these particular modifications have been checked through by both the chairman and ranking member of our Aviation Subcommittee. Let the Record show that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, our ranking member, is at an important Finance Committee markup at the moment with respect to prescription drugs and Medicare. I have checked it through with him, and it has been checked through on this side. We ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is correct. The money is for security, and a security check is what we are trying to fund, finance. It just hasn't been vetted at FAA. It is very logical to this particular Senator that the Senator from Nevada is correct, and I will make every effort in the conference to change the particular formula or rather embellish the word emplanement, so as to get destinations and takeoffs considered as going just through the security and the money be allocated thereof. So I assure the Senator from Nevada that I will support it in every way I can. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Are they prepared to yield back their time?