Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. We do not make anything anymore. We are just jabbering to each other. We are not producing. The Secretary of Commerce is burdened with the duty--and the current occupant of the chair would be interested in this--of listing some 500 critical articles to our national security for defense purposes. We have a $5 billion deficit in the balance of trade. We had to wait 5 months before we went into Desert Storm to get mainframes from the Japanese. Now we have to go to other countries before we can go to war. We do not make those things anymore. We have an advanced technology of a $2 billion a month deficit in the balance of trade, over $24 billion a year, in advanced technology. The Japanese have given up. They moved their advanced technology and research to Shanghai. The most modern automotive research is in downtown Shanghai. General Motors put it there. We can go right on down the list. The Chinese are saying before anyone can come with factories, they have to bring their research. The technology community of the United States is concerned about our technological capability. We do not have as many Americans engineers as there are in China. We maintain our security by a superiority of technology, and we are draining the tub of technology just as fast as we can. Yet in this Chamber, we want to talk about an Energy bill, want to talk about a judge--don't we want to talk about trade? Put fast track on the Energy bill. Why not? Unless, by gosh, we get serious and start talking about jobs in America, the economic strength, the industrial backbone of this Nation. Tax cuts loses jobs. Free trade loses jobs. We have a race to the bottom to Mexico. In South Carolina we have lost 61,000 jobs-- incidentally, we were supposed to get 200,000 jobs in America by signing NAFTA. That is what NAFTA was going to create for us. Nationally, we have lost 450,000 jobs to Mexico, but not for long because those same Mexican jobs formerly in America are now going to China. It is different than what Henry Ford said. Henry Ford said, I want the man making that automobile to be able to buy it. He produced a minimum wage and he produced health benefits. So we built up middle America. Now, instead, with a trade policy of free trade, like monkeys on a string, there is no such thing as free trade. That is an oxymoron. Trade is something for something. If it is free, it is a gift. But with that particular policy, we have to race to the bottom in the United States of America. I have an article from the New York Times, July 20, that I wanted to read, which points out our tremendous difficulty. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Of particular significance, the article quotes Steven Roach, the chief economist of Morgan Stanley. He finds that China's total exports have tripled since 1994, that 65 percent of the $244 billion increase comes from foreign companies in China, most of them United States. Then I want you to listen to this economist about the economy, Mr. Mark M. Xanely. Before I quote him, let me say I am not an economist but I finally found one that is going to correct Alan Greenspan, because Mr. Greenspan is looking to consumer demand. But before you can have consumer demand, you have to have consumers. Before you have consumers, you have to have producers. Before you have producers, you have to have jobs. Here is what he says: For starters, the forecasters seemed not to grasp how much the American economy has deviated from the standard business cycle and the standard cures. A major reason for the deviation is the mobility of American companies, particularly the ease with which they now shift operations to China and India. The wholesale movement of jobs and production overseas is handcuffing the recovery. Why do they have a jobless recovery? Because the economy of the United States is handcuffed with this silly cutting of the taxes, jobs and growth, jobs and growth, free trade, free trade, free trade. Maybe it is not jobless growth, it is just jobless in the United States. This tax incentive, this stimulation is not going to create jobs in downtown Nashville, TN. The jobs will be in Shanghai, China. If you are in Nashville, TN, and you get a good fat tax break, the question arises, should you build the plant in Nashville? No, your competition has gone to China. If you are going to meet the competition, you are going to have to put that new plant, use that tax break, that stimulation--not to invest in the United States but to invest in China. We are missing the point of history when everyone talks of this free trade nonsense. I remind them of Alexander Hamilton, a good Republican. Some of them want to replace him with the inventor of voodoo I, Ronald Reagan, on the $10 bill. You got some crazy things going on in this town. Imagine putting Ronald Reagan on the $10 bill rather than Alexander Hamilton--one of the greatest of the great. Hamilton not only helped with the Constitution, not only helped Madison with the Federalist Papers, but created a ``Report on Manufacturers.'' I have it right here. What happened was the fledgling colony had just won its freedom when the British corresponded with us back in New York, because that is where the Capitol was at the time. They said what you ought to do back in the colonies since you won your freedom, was to trade with us what you produce best and we will trade back with you what we produce best. The doctrine was David Ricardo's, the economic doctrine of comparative advantage. It was Alexander Hamilton who won out. He even persuaded Madison, who voted for it. He issued the ``Report on Manufacturers.'' It is too long to include in the Record. The original copy is at the Library of Congress. It can be expressed in one expression: Hamilton told the British to bug off. We are not going to remain your colony, shipping to you our agriculture, our foodstuffs, our rice, our cotton, our indigo, our coal, our iron ore. We are not going to remain a colony; no, we will become a nation state. The first bill to ever pass Congress was for the seal of the United States--but the second bill on July 4, 1789, that passed this Congress was protectionism, a tariff bill of 50 percent on 60 articles. We built this country over a 160-year-period with protectionism. I will never forget, every time they would tell me: Senator, you are nothing but a protectionist. I am for free trade, free trade. The opponents do not know what the heck they are talking about. I feel sorry for them. Protectionism built the country. We did not even have the income tax until 1913. We built it on tariffs. After Hamilton came Lincoln. People told Lincoln that to build the transcontinental rail we ought to get steel from England. The father of the Republican Party said: No, no. We are going to build our own steel mills and when we get through we will not only have the rail equipment, we will have our steel production. Then Roosevelt in the depth of the Depression protected agriculture. People do not think I know anything about farming. But I get the farm vote every time I run. I love campaigning out in Iowa. I can tell you right now Roosevelt protected agriculture. And Eisenhower protected oil in the 1950s with quotas. We built the country with protectionism. I will never forget when we had to have President Reagan's second inauguration right out here in the Rotunda. He raised his hand and he said, ``preserve, protect and defend.'' Then we came back here and we debated something on trade. I said something about protection and the majority jumped all over me: You are a protectionist, protectionist. We have the Army to protect us when the enemy is out. We have Social Security to protect us from old age. We have Medicare to protect us from ill health. We have environmental laws, clean air and clean water, to protect the environment. The fundamental foundation of government is to protect. Let's say you wanted to start an Alexander Manufacture Company. But before you can open Alexander Manufacture, you have to have a minimum wage. You have to have clean air; you have to have clean water; you have to have Social Security; you have to have Medicare; you have to have Medicaid; you have to have safe machinery; you have to have a safe working place; you have OSHA coming around looking at you; you have to have plant closing notice; you have to have parental leave. I could go on and on. Or you can open a plant in China for 60 cents an hour, and have none of that. So companies go to China. I will never forget, I had a friend who organized his own company out in California. I saw where he was very successful and I said: I helped you. I got your water and sewer lines when you came to South Carolina, when you had an expansion. I want you to give us that plant in South Carolina. He said: I don't build anything in the United States. He said: I do it in China. I got research, I got sales--for 10 percent of the costs. He did not say this but I know it: They build the factory. They provide the employment. They give people a year-to-year contract. They don't have to worry about the cycle that the economists talk about. If the cycle goes down, they do not have to renew the contract next year. They cannot lose. We are in one dickens of a fix. I was reading the book ``Theodore Rex,'' the patron saint of my Republican friends. He is one of my heroes, too. In the book, on page 20, let me read at the turn of the century what we really had was protectionism. The United States was already so rich in goods and services that she was more self-sustaining than any industrial power in history. Indeed, it could consume only a fraction of what it produced. The rest went overseas at prices other exporters found hard to match. As Andrew Carnegie said: The nation that makes the cheapest steel has other nations at its feet. More than half the world's cotton, corn, copper and oil flowed from the American cornucopia, and at least one-third of all steel, iron, silver and gold. Even if the United States were not so blessed with raw materials, the excellence of her manufactured products guaranteed her dominance of world markets. Current advertisements in British magazines gave the impression that the typical Englishman waked to the ring of an Ingersoll alarm, shaved with a Gillette razor, combed his hair with Vaseline tonic, buttoned his Arrow shirt, hurried downstairs for Quaker Oats, California figs, Maxwell House coffee, commuted in a Westinghouse tram, body by Fisher, rose to his office in an Otis elevator, worked all day with his Waterman pen under the efficient glare of Edison lightbulbs. ``It only remains,'' one Fleet Street wag suggested, ``for us to take American coal to Newcastle.'' Behind the joke lay real concerns. The United States was already supplying beer to Germany, pottery to Bohemia, oranges to Valencia. As a result of this billowing surge in productivity, Wall Street was awash with foreign capital. Carnegie calculated that America could afford to buy the entire United Kingdom and settle Britain's national debt into the bargain. For the first time in history, transatlantic money currents were thrusting more powerfully westward than east. Even the Bank of England had begun to borrow money on Wall Street. New York City seemed deemed to replace London as the world's financial center. Mr. President, you can see exactly what happened. We built it up. At the end of World War II, my dear friends, we had the only economy. In order to prosper, we had to spread prosperity. The way we did that was very sanguine: the Marshall plan. And it worked. We sent over money, 80-some billion in today's dollars. We sent over the equipment, the finest machine tools, automotive equipment and otherwise. We sent over the expertise, and we rebuilt Europe, we rebuilt the Pacific rim, and capitalism defeated communism. It worked. Our trouble is it worked too well for these eager-beaver manufacturers. I remember them well because I have been in this thing, now, for 50-some years. I can see them--Oh, I get jet lag; I hate to go; oh, man, I don't want to go; and everything else of that kind. No more, not with the computer, not with the Internet. You can send some young, aggressive executive to Shanghai to run your plant. You can set it up on your computer. You can see what is happening daily. You can be in touch on the Internet. You can run it from the 32nd floor on Sixth Avenue in New York and, man, you have it made. And they are all doing it. So what happened with the Marshall plan? We not only spread that prosperity but we really taught these people a bad lesson because they don't think about the country. You know, you and I are supposed to think about the country. They are supposed to think about profits. They do not have a duty. Of course, being Americans, you would think they would be a little bit more patriotic. Their organizations are against us. Now who is the enemy? in other words. The toast of the town, Jack Welsh of GE, he believed in squeezing the lemon. This says: One of General Electric's CEO's, Jack Welsh's favorite phrase is ``squeeze the lemon'' for wringing out the cost. To help them meet the stiff goals, several of GE's business units, including aircraft engines, power systems, industrial systems, have been prodding suppliers to move to low-cost Mexico where the industrial giant already employs 30,000. That was 4 years ago. GE even puts on supplier migration conferences to help them make the leap. He goes on: Welsh's widely admired status in corporate America has lent legitimacy to a model of business success that is built on job and wage cuts. This is Business Week. This is the bible of the business community, the weekly bible. Here it is, and I am quoting: The internal report, a copy of which Business Week obtained, says: ``GE set the tone early and succinctly: `Migrate or be out of business; not a matter of if, just when'. This is not a seminar just to provide information. We expect you to move and move quickly.'' The followup: Even though GE's profits were up 80 percent at that particular time, they wanted more. You know, they are not just Jesse Jackson in civil rights. This is Jack Welsh in Business Leadership: I want it all. My time has come. I want it all. So the 80 percent didn't suit him. But you don't jump on poor Jack; he has gone now, and he has had other troubles. Let's go to last month. General Motors and Ford: Automotive News. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, just this last month: Ford Motor Company and General Motors are pressuring their North American suppliers to great migration in China. Embroiled in a price war with their foreign rivals, Ford and GM have delivered an ultimatum. Suppliers must match a world price that is increasingly set in China, or they must build factories in China. How do you like that? That is not textiles, that is the automotive backbone of the United States of America. I voted for the Chrysler bailout, so now Daimler can own them. The foreigners own all the foodstuffs. They are going to have all the banks. Now they are going to have all the automobile business. I wish Don Evans was up in Michigan. He would tell them you get a tax cut, you get $300. What are you going to do? We are going to have growth, growth, and jobs. Here, within the week, the Automotive News says you have to go to China and you are going to lose 900,000 industrial jobs. Go up into Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois to what I call the rust belt. The automotive parts makers are gone. By 2010, Ford expects its purchases of parts from China to rise to $10 billion. Last year, Ford's worldwide purchases of Chinese components was less than $100 million. I quote further: Suppliers who do not want to migrate to China are feeling the heat. Consider the plight of Wescast Industries. Wescast controls 70 percent of the Big Three's exhaust manifold business in North America. Ford told Wescast this year that it would transfer $50 million of its purchases from Wescast to Chinese factories, according to the industry source. Don't give me the service economy. I know about it. My light bill in Charleston, SC, is administered in Bangalore India. My insurance policy is administered in Dublin, Ireland. That is the service economy. Here is the automotive, hard machine tools industry. I quote further: For manufacturers of labor-intensive components, China is an attractive location. According to the Chinese Government data, manufacturers in Shanghai typically pay workers $1 an hour, plus 42 cents an hour in benefits. Factories in rural areas generally pay wages of 60 cents an hour. That is significantly lower than pay in Mexico which ranges from $2 to $2.50 an hour, including wages and benefits. Here is the poor Senator from South Carolina fussing about 61,000 textile jobs lost to Mexico. But we find now that the Mexican jobs they got from South Carolina are now on the way to 60 cents an hour with no benefits in the rural areas of China. It is beg thy neighbor; a race to the bottom. That is the trade policy. That is the job policy. That is the economic policy. Don't worry about energy policy. Heavens above, why can't we catch Kenny Boy? I raised the question at that particular time when Larry Thompson became Deputy Attorney General. He is in charge of corporate corruption enforcement and violations enforcement. Before he came to Justice, he worked in a law firm in Atlanta. His firm was representing who? Kenny Boy Lay, of Enron. So I raised the question of a conflict of interest. What did he say? Oh, he didn't work on that particular client. He didn't have anything to do with it. But I run a firm, and you make money, and I make money. Come on. Here it is 2\1/2\ years later--and we have gotten everybody, including Martha Stewart--for one little stock thing. This fellow, Larry Thompson, wants to know what he should be indicted for. I can draw it up for him. We had the hearing in California before the Committee on Commerce, Space, Science and Transportation. I turned to the witness, David Freeman. I said: Now, Mr. Freeman, you say all this happened with Enron, and Kenny Boy may not have known anything about it. I said: In fact, this morning on television I saw Mrs. Lay, his wife, and she said Kenny Boy didn't know anything about it. Mr. Freeman said he was the architect. He knew all about it. He designed it. Take that testimony of the knowledge of what is going on, the Enron fraud of California, the wrecked economy, and they are now calling for a recall of the Governor because of the problems Enron helped create in that state. I heard my distinguished colleague from Idaho. He said the economy went from a surplus to a deficit, and the Governor didn't do anything about it. Let us transfer that to Washington. The President started off with a surplus. He said he even had a $1 trillion rainy day fund. The budget was $53 billion in the red when he talked on February 27, 2001 to the Congress. He talked about the $2.6 billion he would set aside for Social Security. He said there was $2 billion for the budget needs in defense security, and he said he had $1 trillion left over. He was in the red then. But we have Enron accounting here in Washington. If he has gone from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $4 trillion deficit, is anybody asking for the recall of the President? Of course not. But they think that is par for the course out there in the political intramurals in California. Come on. What is going on. It is not just GE. It is not just Ford. It is not just General Motors, or IBM--Big Blue. This was last week, July 22, from the New York Times: ``IBM Explores Shift of Some Jobs Overseas.'' I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, a California IBM employee relations executive said: . . . three million service jobs were expected to shift to foreign workers . . . I.B.M. should move some of its jobs now done in the United States, including software design jobs, to India and other countries. I could read on and on. But you can see it. It is in the Record. You have Business Week, ``High-Tech in China.'' I don't want to include the magazine itself. But this is a quote from a Business Week article from earlier this year: Is Your Job Next? A new round of globalization is sending up-scale jobs offshore. They include chip design, engineer, basic research, financial analysis. Can America lose these jobs and still prosper? You have not just Business Week but Fortune magazine from June of this year. Here is one of the executives quoted here: ``I've been in this business for over 20 years, and it's the worst I've ever seen'', says David Hoffmann, CEO of DHR International, a Chicago-based recruiting firm. ``Nothing even comes close to this.'' . . . relocation of the jobs to offshore sites. Machines-- or low-wage foreigners--could just as easily do their work. . . . shifting jobs to cheaper locales like India and the Philippines. It's not just call centers anymore. Indian radiologists now analyze CT scans and chest X-rays for American patients in an office park in Bangalore, not far from where Ernst & Young has 200 accountants processing U.S. tax returns. E&Y's tax prep center in India is only 18 months old . . . but the company already has plans to double its size. Corporate America is quickly learning that a cubicle can be replicated overseas as easily as a shop floor can. Irwin Kellner, who is now at Hofstra University, was at Manufacturers Hanover. We have had him before committees of the Congress year in and year out. I quote: ``White-collar workers and college graduates are in a state of shock,'' says Kellner. ``It appears these job losses are permanent. They're not necessarily coming back when the economy does.'' Mr. President, we are in deep trouble. We are into a real trade war. We are into a thing of national survival. Let me see here. Quoting: At the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, 96 percent of grads in 2000 had an offer when they collected their sheepskin. Only 72 percent of last year's grads were as lucky--and this year isn't shaping up any better. Even at Harvard the percentage of grads without job offers has gone from 3 percent in 2000 to 13 percent now. For schools further down the food chain, almost half the class will graduate without even one offer. Quoting further: . . . in the past two or three years companies have turned to India and the Philippines for much more sophisticated tasks: financial analysis, software design, tax preparation, even the creation of PowerPoint presentations. Quoting still further: And how cheap. Starting pay for an American accountant, says Kline, typically ranges from $40,000 to $50,000 [in the United States]. In Bangalore the accountants are paid less than half that. Another quote from the article: . . . Forrester Research predicts that 3.3 million service jobs will move to countries like India, Russia, China, and the Philippines. The firm of A.T. Kearney talked about shifting 500,000 jobs, or 8 percent of the U.S. workforce, abroad by 2008. I quote: Any function that does not require face-to-face contact is now perceived as a candidate for offshore relocation. So, Mr. President, I could go on and on. But let me just say, we are in a struggle for our economic survival. I have talked to you that free trade is a loser. We are losing all those jobs. And who is the enemy? Not just General Motors, not just IBM. I say it authoritatively because I know who wants this losing trade bill--you can start with the National Association of Manufacturers. I got into a struggle with Victor Schwartz there in the 1970s, 25 years ago. But it is not only the National Association of Manufacturers. It is the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board--yes, my dear colleagues, the United States Chamber of Commerce. The United States Chamber of Commerce is no longer interested in main street America. It was. I won U.S. Chamber of Commerce awards during my 1992 race. Bob Thompson of Greenville, SC, was the president. And I was the poster boy of the United States Chamber of Commerce. We had stopped labor law reform. We had eight cloture votes. My distinguished friend Russell Long was chairman of the Finance Committee, and we agreed the eighth vote would count. That would decide it. We would not go any further. And up until about 20 minutes before the vote, he had me beat. I heard from a friend that I might be able to persuade Ed Zorinsky of Nebraska, and I raced over to the fourth floor of the Russell Building. The rollcall had already been called. And I saw Ed coming down the hall, and I said: Ed, I need your help. And he said: I will help you, Fritz. And we called that roll, and we won the eighth rollcall vote on cloture. This crowd gets steamed up over two or three cloture votes. So let's get to the record. I helped defeat an eighth cloture vote myself. And as a result, I was the poster boy of the United States Chamber of Commerce. Now, Tom Donohue--a nice fellow, absolutely honest--I worked with him when he represented the truckers. He knows nothing about international trade, but he is going for the money. He is for tort reform. I never heard him mention a bit about tort reform when he represented the truckers. But now he is, by gosh, the expert on free trade, free trade. When I ran in 1998, they put out pamphlets against me. They endorsed my opponent, even though I had been their poster boy. I had not changed my vote. I was the same way in trade in 1998 as I was in 1992. But you can see how this crowd is. They headed for the overseas barn. I can tell you that right now. So you have the National Association of Manufacturers, you have the Business Roundtable, you have the Conference Board. You have the United States Chamber of Commerce. I have won about six of these National Federation of Independent Business small business awards, but now they are being taken over. The U.S. Chamber and the Business Roundtable have gotten hold of them and said: Oh, we are going to get you some writeoffs, some tax breaks, too. So they are for free trade now. To increase consumer demand, you have to have consumers. In order to have consumers, you must first have producers. And in order to have producers, you have to have jobs. And we are losing them hand over fist. I have been the author of five textile trade bills that have passed the Senate. Four of those bills have gone to the President of the United States. Four have been vetoed--vetoed. President Carter vetoed one. President Reagan vetoed two. And President George Herbert Walker Bush vetoed the last one. And we came within two votes over on the House side of over turning the veto. We had a majority, but we did not have the two-thirds necessary to override. The other enemy is the Retail Federation. They order so many hundred thousand dozen shirts, or whatever it is, from China. Then, if the market is good, and they run short, they call up New Jersey quick and get another hundred thousand dozen. Now, what they get from New Jersey and what they get from China is not the same price. They get a much greater profit on the Chinese import than they do on the New Jersey shirt. I know because I got a New Jersey shirt on. Yes, sir, I believe in domestic production. Years ago, I used to represent Pontiac folks, and a bunch of other automobile dealers. Once I bought a new car, and I was so careful to buy a domestic car; no foreign car. My neighbor said: Fritz, how much did you pay for this new Pontiac? I was looking at the sticker price, when I see on the sticker: FOB Montreal. I had bought a foreign car. I had bought a foreign car and didn't even know it. Pontiac had gone to Canada to make it because they saved $800 on the health bill on every car. So you can understand, this has been going on for years. But we are draining the swamp. There aren't jobs left in America. And you cannot find a hometown newspaper that has endorsed protectionist trade--I don't mind saying the word. You have to protect your standard of living. We Republicans and Democrats, we say: Clean air, clean water, minimum wage, Medicare, Medicaid, plant closings, parental leave. If you put that requirement on manufacturers, you have to protect it. You can't just go over where they have none of those protections and 60 cents an hour. The newspapers make a majority of their profit on retail advertising. So the retail federation and all the big stores call the main advertisers. They go down to the editors and they give them a handout. I have compared the editorials in different parts of the country. They give them the handout, and they write the editorial. Free trade, free trade--they think they are being wise. Free trade loses jobs. We are losing the jobs right and left. But everyone is for free trade: the hometown newspaper, the Business Roundtable, the Conference Boards, the United States Chamber, the retailers, all of K Street. Have you ever had a K Street lawyer come here and ask you to vote against free trade? You can't find one. You and I are paid to protect the jobs of America. We are not paid to make a profit. But come on, you can't find a K Street lawyer who wants to protect jobs. In the Administration they think this is wonderful. They can open up the islands of Indonesia and transship through Singapore the electronic parts back into America from cheap labor. So they are all working against us. It is not just President Bush. President Clinton was for free trade, free trade. He is the one who passed NAFTA. He was the one who was going to open up and create 200,000 jobs. He impoverished the State of South Carolina, I can tell you that. We have lost 61,000 textile jobs in my little State. Where we have a BMW plant, 3 years ago we had 3.2 percent unemployment. It is over 8 percent unemployment now. Don't tell me about free trade, free trade. I have watched the outflow here. So you have the Government against us. Then if everyone is against us, who could be for us, asks the Good Book? Us. That is all I am trying to do, is wake my colleagues up to get out of this nonsense. I see the Senator from Wisconsin. I know the plants out there, too. I did work for them. I carpetbagged a few of those plants, too. I brought them to South Carolina. But we have to move to rebuild America. We have to stop whining: I am for fair trade. I am for balancing the field, leveling the field. That is all garbage. That is baloney, if I have ever heard it. We have to start and compete in the international economy. It is a trade war. It is very viable. It is very fair. It is very understandable. We have to get in there. Having rebuilt Europe and the Pacific rim, we have to, by gosh, get in there, and in order to remove a barrier, raise a barrier. Then remove them both, go by their rule book. We are Goody Two-shoes, and we want to set the good example like we have done for 50 some years. And we have lost our shirt in manufacturing. We can go right to the tax law. I am going down the list now. We can go to the tax law that says if you manufacture overseas and keep your profit, you can build a new plant. You don't have to pay taxes on that profit. Or we can turn around and go along with Charlie Rangel on the House side--I have the bill in on the Senate side--and say if you manufacture and keep your jobs in America, you get a tax credit. If you go overseas, you lose. You get a tax increase. That is what we ought to do. Make it so rather than trying to revive Europe and the Pacific rim, we have to revive the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, earlier this month, newlyweds Walt and Donyelle Wilkins from Greenville, SC, were on their way to their honeymoon, when the small plane they were on crashed into the ocean. Because of their quick action and disregard for personal safety, they saved the lives of two young children, also passengers on the plane. I rise to salute this couple, and to thank them for their true heroism. Walt and Donyelle were married in Charleston two Saturdays ago. The day after the wedding the couple took off from Ft. Lauderdale, heading to the Bahamas, when the plane crashed into the open sea. After assisting others out of the sinking plane and distributing life jackets, Walt jumped into the rough sea without a life jacket and swam to others, assisting them in inflating their jackets, while Donyelle held an infant above the waves. After the parents of the infant were located in the water the child was passed to them so that Walt and Donyelle could assist two small children whose mother had just drowned. Several of the surviving passengers decided to attempt to swim to the nearest land some six miles away. But Walt and Donyelle stayed with the young children, keeping their heads above the waters and calming them by singing ``Amazing Grace.'' Approximately 2 hours later, they were rescued by a Coast Guard helicopter. The children are alive today because of the Wilkins' amazing grace under threats no one should ever have to face. I speak for all my colleagues in wishing the young couple a long and happy life together.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

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

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be delighted to read the amendment: On page 49, line 2, strike ``$150 million'' and insert ``$450 million''; and on page 66, line 9, strike ``$823,700,000'' and insert ``$523,700,000.'' What happens on page 49? We add $300 million to the port security provision to which everyone has attested that they support. When we asked Secretary Ridge about more money, in that they had not proposed anything in this particular Homeland Security bill, he said, well, that is in the critical infrastructure section. So that is where we take it from as an offset on page 66, line 9, strike the $823,700,000 and reduce it by $300 million. This ought to be an easy amendment for everyone to support in that, No. 1, we all voted for way more money when we passed the authorization for port security the year before last. We had 100 votes, all Republicans and all Democrats. And then we had the urgent supplemental--incidentally, that authorized $4.2 billion. We are not talking in those terms at all. Actually, the Coast Guard surveyed 47-some major ports--there are 362 ports and 5,000 facilities--but there are 47 port areas with which we really are concerned. In those port areas are some 500 different facilities. So at that particular time, we said to the Commandant of the Coast Guard, give us a study and find out exactly what is needed. He came up with a $7 billion figure at that particular time. So we are not at the $7 billion that has already been requested and found needed by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, not the $4.2 billion authorized at the time we passed port security legislation and we actually provided $1.2 billion. We had an amendment for $1.2 billion. It was defeated in the urgent supplemental, but when we looked at the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the administration did not request anything under port security. When asked about it, they said that is in the critical facilities section, and that is why we take from the $823 million this necessary $300 million. Why do I say it is necessary? Right to the point, the interim rule requires the submission of security plans by December of this year. I will limit my comments to the 47 port areas and not the 5,000. This is required by all 5,000, but like first responders I think we will all be around for quite some time before we get the first responders outfitted as they should be. But here we know of the threat, and of the 47 port areas, they are without any approved plan within 1 year from July 1. And they must have the plans submitted in 6 months' time because by next July 1, if they have not been approved, under the bill the Coast Guard has the authority to close the port. What has happened is the ports have all gotten together. The captain of the port under the Coast Guard is the responsible official. He has had to get the Immigration Service. He has had to get the Customs Service. He has had to get the Drug Enforcement Service. He has had to get local law enforcement. He has had to get the local public facilities, port facilities. He has had to get the private port facilities. This young officer out of the Coast Guard has had to correlate it all, working together to get a master plan for the security of that port area, and submit it by the end of this year-- within 6 months time. When he submits it, of course, the Coast Guard itself has to approve or disapprove the plans coming in from all over, from 362, but particularly these 47 ports, and they have to begin to implement them. In terms of a major port in Houston, TX, Long Beach, CA, Seattle, WA, Philadelphia, PA, we are talking sense now, we are not talking politics, if we think we need a little bit more in our area for port facilities. I am in pretty good shape where I am in Charleston, SC. Since they closed the Navy yard there, I suspect al-Qaida would be looking for a more ripe target. They would be looking at Philadelphia, for instance. What could happen? We know Osama bin Laden, according to Lloyd's of London, has control of some 20 vessels. He actually owns some 10 vessels and he has control of an additional 10. So he has control of some 20 regular vessels, what you might call rust buckets. It was one of these that went into a port in Kenya 3 years. What happened was that particular ship docked at the port in Kenya. The terrorist crews jumped off, went and blew up the American Embassy in Nairobi, and went over into Tanzania and Dar Es Salaam and blew up that embassy, got back on the ship and boarded, and we have not been able to find them since. That tells me--and I used to represent the ports in South Carolina-- what we have is not just the ship but we have ship crews available to al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden can easily get three to four. He does not have to send them to flight school in Arizona or send them down to Florida. He has them. They are experienced tanker crews. These three or four experienced tanker crews could work their way into a good Exxon or Texaco or Unocol or other oil company, a Chevron tanker, come with that Shell tanker into the port of Philadelphia, up the Delaware River, and just before they reach port, the three or four could throw the captain over, take control of the ship, and ram it right into the tank farm, and blow it up. Booz Allen Hamilton did a study; and if there was a major terrorist act at the ports, we would have to close down the eastern seaboard. The stock market would have to close. We are talking serious business. And here it is that we, as a public body, have set the responsibility with the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, and the Homeland Security Department. We have said come up with plans and have them ready and approved by this time next year, but at least submit them and have them gone over with, starting in December of this year. That money is needed--not the $4.2 billion authorized. I don't know of any more critical thing. I worked on Homeland Security with our distinguished chairman, Senator Cochran. Actually, I had the U.S. entry and exit program. That was under my Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State. I am totally familiar with the FBI, the Immigration Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and many of these particular customs. But this particular port thing is real because it is mammoth and it is a way to close down the economy for a year to 2 years on the east coast. There is no question. Go into Houston, TX, and you have ruined the south. We would have to start rationing. Go into Long Beach, CA, and you have closed down the west coast area. I worked with all the committee members as best I could. I said there is no other place to find funds, other than what Secretary Ridge himself indicated when we asked why they didn't submit an amount for port security itself. He said it already is in the critical infrastructure facilities program. So we take that money out of there, and we get it an offset. Of course, working on the committee, that really takes us to some need that is denied in any other area. We can increase that amount. We will be working with an increased amount, hopefully, when we get to conference on Homeland Security. As the distinguished chairman and ranking member know, we must have more money in Homeland Security. We must have more money in our little Commerce, Justice, State bill that has been cut $910 million, way below last year. We could not go into conference with our House friends and formulate a bill and take care of the FBI and all of the other agencies. Just yesterday, the FBI was increased in this year, $410 million on the House side. I believe if you proposed that amendment in the next 10 minutes on the floor of the Senate, it would receive an almost unanimous vote. We do not want to cut from the FBI that is enforcing laws against crime. FBI Director Mueller is doing an excellent job fashioning domestic intelligence efforts. We never wanted to have that in America, particularly after the McCarthy days and the House un-American Activities Committee. We said, learn and study and make absolutely certain that we are not spying on each other and having a domestic intelligence service. Now, with the war on terrorism, we need it. That has to be funded. This is for just a modest request of the billions and billions included for fighting the war on terror. The former Commandant of the Coast Guard and now the head of the Transportation Security Administration, Admiral Loy, is doing an outstanding job. We had a debate within the committee to try to get a sufficient amount just for the transponder tower. An airplane cannot approach the coastline of the United States of America without us identifying it. We cannot do that with respect to shipping. We are trying our best to use some overhead satellites, but we need to put up the towers. Once the towers are there, then we can require the vessels themselves to install the transponders. As of this moment, we have to get these plans and we have to get them moving. The communities are moving. They are ready, willing, and able. They are submitting some of these plans already at the Coast Guard office in the Transportation Security Administration. But we do not have the money to follow through. This is an unfunded mandate of our own that we want to at least set aside this particular amount, not to solve all of the ports problems by any manner or means, not to solve all the docking facilities' problems. That would be impossible. You could not spend that amount of money in 1 year's time. But at least we will need these funds in fiscal year 2004 to follow through to get port security in America. The fiscal year begins in a couple of months time, on October 1. It is critical. I yield the floor and I am glad to respond to any questions or comments anyone has.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I appreciate the complimentary remarks but you can't any better describe the Senator's resistance and objection to the amendment other than as fanciful. He goes off into all of the committees. It is very interesting to hear him in opposition to this amendment say that we have five subcommittees. Each of us have five subcommittees on the Appropriations Committee. There is nothing new about that. Yes, that is what it is, the appropriations for the entire Government. Here is some $29 to $30 billion we are expending for homeland security. I am talking about one particular section where they have facilities-based critical infrastructure. When asked, Secretary Ridge said: Well, that's the way it is. We are going to take care of it. We are going to take care of it. But when we received the budget, it was not taken care of. I am not guessing with figures. The $300 million is just a minuscule part of the $1.7 billion request sitting on Admiral Loy's desk. I wish he would call up and get his staff to work and find out the facts. We started off with $1.2 billion, and the ports came in reuqesting $1.7 billion. Well, it takes the Coast Guard and it takes the Transportation Security Administration some time to look over, in detail, these particular submissions of $1.7 billion. This amendment is just to get it started with $300 million. To say that we would create an atmosphere of waste, that we would contribute to disarray, that we may be undermining the process--come on. What nonsense is that? Here we worked on this thing in a bipartisan fashion. We had 100 Senators--all Republicans and all Democrats-- approve $1.2 billion. The Coast Guard itself comes in and says, in order to meet the request, the needs for port security, it is going to be at least $7 billion. They have on their desk, as I speak, $1.7 billion in requests. And he says, we don't have the information and that this might contribute to disarray. Come on. Disarray? It contributes to security. He said it would be undermining the process and contribute to insecurity. I never have heard such an argument in my life, when we have the actual facts and we minimized the request that we know is absolutely needed. They can vote it down. We are not the Mother Superior Security around here. But I do have a conscience about this issue because I worked with all sides of the aisle. I worked intimately with Admiral Loy. I work now with Admiral Collins of the Coast Guard. I have been to the ports. We have had, under the leadership of Senator Breaux of Louisiana, field hearings to all of these particular ports and everything else. We don't really begin to get true security but this is just the minimal requirement to get the process out and working. He says they are wisely, thoughtfully disbursing. That is exactly what we are doing, trying to get the disbursement of the funds there. They are hanging back because they can't get the studies made, and everything else, and can't go out and examine the ports, and what have you. They don't have all of the personnel. They don't even have the towers up for the transponders. You could talk for the rest of the afternoon about the needs of the Coast Guard. They are the best agency we have in the Government for the money we spend. I can tell you that right now. The Coast Guard is outstanding. They have said: Our appraisal now is for at least $7 billion. And that was last year at this time. They have requests on their desks for $1.7 billion and all we are asking for is $300 million. We hear how we all have five subcommittees and every subcommittee wants more money, and this is just asking for more money because we have a subcommittee. Come on. That is not responsive at all. I hope the Members will act in the security of the ports of the United States and approve this particular amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the statement has been made by the chairman that the administration opposes this. I wonder. I will go right to the text of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia on Iraq. A few comments are necessary when you say the administration was saying various things to get us into the war in Iraq. Now we find out not just one swallow makes a spring, but one 13-word sentence got us into the war. We heard that in 45 minutes Iraq could launch a chemical attack. We heard about the aluminum tubes. We had the distinguished Secretary of State at the U.N. with photos pointing out that there they are, can't you see? You knew he was a judicious and careful witness up there. You had--well, of all things, not just the yellowcake from Niger in Africa, you had the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, say just days before the attack in Iraq that they had indeed reconstituted nuclear. And I worked with the Presiding Officer in Transportation, which I will get to in a minute, when she was Secretary of Transportation. But getting right to this particular point, I didn't have any fear about any imminent attack on the United States or maybe an imminent attack in the Mideast, on our friend Israel. Israel doesn't have time to play games. If you have ever been there--the numerous times I have been there, with an air alert, within minutes the planes alerted in Israel are found over Jordan, or over the Mediterranean, or over Syria. They are gone. They have left the country. The country is in a sense, a sort of aircraft carrier. So they cannot play around with conferences. There isn't any question on the credibility of the so-called statements that the administration said, the administration requested, the administration demanded, the administration vetoed. I think the poor President has a hard time getting along with his staff on the information he gets. First he said the Director of the CIA was responsible; he had him apologize. Now he says a White House national security staffer is responsible; he had him apologize. We will pick up the morning paper and find it was somebody else. But he put the picture on his own White House Internet site of him going over every line, word for word, in the State of the Union, with his own hands. I wish I had that in my pocket. I would submit it for the Record so everyone could see it. So don't give me this about the administration. The best of the administration wants this. The head of the Transportation Security Administration cleaned that agency up, frankly, after we instituted it. We had a rather inept administrator there at first, and I speak in praise of Admiral Loy, because he came over from retirement as commandant of the Coast Guard. I have been with him on hearings and on field trips. As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia pointed out, there is over a billion-some in requests by him. This would only get us a little of what he needs. Who speaks for the administration on homeland security? Not those amateurs in the White House who, in tomorrow's paper, will apologize for whatever they said, or whatever they forgot, or whatever they didn't know. We know. We have studied this thing. We tried and we got, in a bipartisan fashion, 100 senatorial votes, Republican and Democrat, $4.2 billion. Since that time, Admiral Loy said the need is going to exceed $7 billion. Since that time, on his desk are requests for $1.7 billion. Obviously, he is not going to respond to every one of the requests. He requested $1.2 billion. These are facts. So when the distinguished chairman says you have to wisely, thoughtfully disburse, that is exactly what we are doing--wisely, thoughtfully, and in a minimal fashion, as we are not getting what factually has been requested. So I dissent from the expression that we don't have the information. I resist the idea that this particular amendment may undermine the process and contribute to the insecurity, when we backed up with needs and everything else around here. I have been working since 9/11 on trying to provide for the particular needs of the ports--and these are the major needs of the major ports. When you talk about a member of a subcommittee and every member wants more money for their subcommittee, this is not that at all. This is something we worked on in the Transportation Committee. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, when she was the Secretary of Transportation, we worked in a bipartisan fashion on the Reagan National Airport. We did a lot of good things. I have worked in a bipartisan fashion. I have not worked around here on port security because we just think, since I am a member of a subcommittee, I want to put in an amendment and get a little bit more money. We are behind the curve on port security in this country, and I am worried about it, in all candor. This is a minimal amendment. I know the staff, and everyone else, including the Department, want more. They have said so and have requested more. I have requested $300 million to be added to the amounts. I hope folks will in a bipartisan fashion support this amendment so we can get the Transportation Security Administration and Admiral Loy and the Coast Guard some financial support to get these funds administered and disbursed and get security in the ports of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I have the floor. I would be glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Alaska for a comment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me yield the floor so the Senator from West Virginia can straighten the point out.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield so I can bring this into focus?

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. It is bipartisan. Kennedy wasn't bipartisan. He was a Democrat. This is bipartisan.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am sure these other nine Republican Governors quoted in this ``Budget Woes Trickle Down''--I am sure they would love to be able to reduce rates. I know my Republican Governor of South Carolina would love to reduce rates. They are not given that option. This ``Budget Woes Trickle Down'' and those nine Republican Governors are having to raise taxes. Kentucky let the prisoners out. They are cutting back all the programs. Higher education is decimated. Every college president is increasing tuition. ``Budget Woes Trickle Down.'' They are not cutting taxes. Let's get right to where we are.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Bill Richardson is the only exception I have been able to find.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, my understanding is that there is a first-degree amendment by my distinguished ranking member, the former chairman of our Budget Committee, that I very vigorously favor with respect to the National Guard and the Reserve. I know that the Reserve officers at the C-17 unit under General Black at the field in Charleston, SC, were alerted on September 12, the day after 9/11, and they are still flying. Now, that is quite a burden. Many are straining to make their rent payments and their house payments. When we had a hearing about 2 months ago and the distinguished Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, came, after listening, I said: Mr. Secretary, what you need is not a money supplement but a manpower supplement. In that vein, I want to say as much as I can in support of my chairman, but I deter for the simple reason that the money is not in this particular Defense appropriations bill for Iraq, and there is a good reason for it. Now, there should be gratitude for little things that happen. I first express my gratitude to the distinguished editor and publisher of the Washington Post, Mr. Donald Graham. I complained in an op-ed piece some weeks ago that they were not covering the budget amounts and that we ought to have truth in budgeting, and because we have come to the highest budget deficit in the history of the U.S. Government, that ought to be covered as front-page news. Today it is. We have moved from page A4 to page 1. I have my copy of today's Post, and front and center on page one are the articles: ``The Budget Deficit May Surpass $450 Billion'' and ``Budget Woes Trickle Down.'' I happened to be a State Governor, and I received a AAA rating from Standard&Poors and Moody's, and we have maintained that in South Carolina. We have to have a balanced budget. I coauthored Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, which happened under President Reagan. I have been in the vineyard. But the headline here states: ``The Budget Deficit May Surpass $450 Billion,'' and I want to thank Jonathan Weisman, the author of this particular story, and Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, for including this. I said we just move up in inches. Let's look at the Mid-Session Review of the Budget of the United States Government by the Office of Management and Budget, the Executive Office of the President, signed by Joshua Bolton, Director, as of yesterday, July 15. We find out why Mitch left town. Mitch Daniels is gone. Now we know why Ari Fleischer is gone. Both Mitch and Ari skipped town. Why? Just look at this document. They have no tricky answers for this one. This is the Administration's writing, and I am reading on page 1 their statement: The deficit for 2003 is now estimated at $455 billion. That is on page 1. One learns, after years up here, how to read these things. So on page 57, you get to the actual deficit, how much we get in revenues and how much we spend, and if spending exceeds revenues, then there is a deficit. If we look at table 20 on page 57, we will find the total gross Federal debt for 2002 was $6,198,000,000,000 and it will go up to $6,896,000,000,000 this year. That is why Mitch left town. Compute that and the deficit will not be an estimated $455 billion; it will be $698 billion. They estimate a $698 billion deficit for the year 2003. But, wait, we have actual numbers as of this minute. As of July 14th, yesterday, the Treasury says the debt to the penny is $478 billion. So it is already more than the $455 billion they say it will be at the end of the year. I guess that is why Paul O'Neill left town, too. They are all leaving if they have anything to do with fiscal matters, and so now we have John Snow as Treasury Secretary. What did President Bush say when he came to town? I have the exact quote, taken from his first address to a Joint Session of Congress in 2001: To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and for Social Security alone. Well, he is spending the trust funds when he says on page 1, $455 billion. He is spending $163 billion of Social Security, plus another $30 billion of other trust funds. What we have is a Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, the military retirees trust fund, the civil service retirees trust fund, the highway, the airport, the railway trust fund, the unemployment compensation trust fund--which will be drained, incidentally; we will have to fill that back up. We are spending it on any and everything but unemployment. This is Enron bookkeeping. We are spending Social Security moneys on any and everything but Social Security. But the President, when he was speaking when he was speaking right after he took office in February 2001, said that wasn't all he was going to do. He goes on and says: We should approach our Nation's budget as any prudent family would, with a contingency fund for emergencies. We are going to have a contingency fund for emergencies or additional spending needs. My budget sets aside $1 trillion over 10 years for additional needs. That is 1 trillion additional reasons you can feel comfortable supporting this budget. Now, Iraq and Afghanistan and the whole kit and kaboodle, put in Liberia and whatever country he wants to run to, we have 14 peacekeeping missions, then we have Kuwait, then we have Afghanistan, then we have Iraq, and now he is looking for another country to send the military to. We don't have enough National Guard or anybody in uniform to get to that country, I can tell you that right now. But that has not cost $1 trillion. It has not cost $1 trillion. But he had $1 trillion set aside before September 11, so why can't he pay for this out of that? Now, let's find out what he said last year in the State of the Union: Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short- term so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible manner. Well, all the spending bills were signed by President George W. Bush. So I take it since that was his admonition to us, he must have had that in mind for himself. And he signed only fiscally responsible budgets. He also said: The way out of this recession, the way to create jobs, is to grow the economy by encouraging investment in factories and equipment and by speeding up tax relief so people will have more money to spend. There were plenty of tax cuts, but he hasn't created any jobs. One more--let's go to January of 2003, to what he said in his State of the Union then: We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations. Tax relief will help our economy immediately. Immediately? He got yet more tax cuts, and we still have 3.8 million Americans, the highest in 20 years, receiving unemployment compensation. There have been over 3 million Americans who have lost their jobs since President Bush took office. I think of President Clinton. He created 20 million jobs, and President Bush already has lost 3 million. Where is the immediacy that his budget is going to take care of? We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, other presidents and other generations. That is exactly what we are doing--$698 billion in bills. Mark it down. Poor Mitch, he got free. Mitch Daniels escaped to Indiana. He did not want to come before the Budget Committee and answer any questions, I tell you, and Ari Fleischer says: This is enough for me, I'm gone. Everybody is going to run--out of Washington. I have worked with the Senator from West Virginia and my chairman, Senator Inouye, who is most responsible on budget matters and we balanced the budget. They want to forget that. Eight years under William Jefferson Clinton and we came from a $403 billion deficit in 1992 to finally getting in the black. We gradually got it down. I voted to increase taxes on Social Security. I voted to increase gas taxes. I voted for all of those tax increases and we acted responsibly. George W. Bush comes to town and what does he do? He says: Tomorrow, don't worry about it. He has some fellow hidden out in the Pacific, he is far enough from Washington, out in California and Boston who says, don't worry about deficits and all. The youngsters are keeping IRA savings accounts and when their IRA savings accounts trigger you will not have to worry about deficits. There is no conscience with this charade. This is the best off-Broadway show you will find going on in the National Government, the National Congress. I hope we can sober up and pull in our horns. We have so much manpower. We do not have the manpower of the Chinese. We have to maintain our security on the superiority of technology, and Iraq proved that. We had the superior technology. But we have been cutting back on that. I have a hearing tomorrow morning where we are going to be cutting back the advanced technology. We are cutting back on education programs. We are cutting back on all the important investments. I ask unanimous consent to print page 1 and page 57 of the Midsession Review for the fiscal year 2004 of the budget of the U.S. Government in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. There you go. Instead of $455 billion in deficits, we are running right this minute, according to the Secretary of the Treasury, in excess of $455 billion. We do not have to wait until the end of September. We are already up to $470 billion. The ``Public Debt to the Penny,'' I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Otherwise, you have heard the comments. It is going up to $698 billion, and it will probably be even more than that. They are trying to be as conservative as they can, I take it. I appreciate the distinguished author of the amendment yielding me time to talk on a peripheral matter. But it goes right to the heart of why they do not include money for Iraq in the Defense appropriations bills.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be delighted to yield to the Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, if you took the cumulative deficits from President Truman, President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon, and President Ford--if you took the deficits for all of the 30 some years which these six President's ran up--it would add up to $358 billion. The deficit this year, according to this President, is going to be almost at $700 billion. Look at page 57 from the Mid-Session Review released today. See where the gross debt from 2002 to September 30, 2003, is in black and white; that is almost $700 billion. We are doubling the 30 plus-year deficit of Republican and Democratic Presidents--paying for the cost of World War II, all the costs of Korea, all the costs of 10 years in Vietnam. We always paid our way. Abraham Lincoln, the father of the party over there on the other side of the aisle, put a tax on dividends and on estates in order to pay for the Civil War. Now you folks come and want to take the tax off dividends, saying there is no tomorrow.