Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have a very high regard for my distinguished junior colleague, but anybody who puts up this particular sense-of-the-Senate resolution relative to Social Security could not possibly be voting for the tax cuts. I know a majority of our Republican-controlled Budget Committee has voted for the tax cuts. The President is for the tax cuts. Right to the point, we are about to pass a tax cut in this budget resolution. I want to bring into focus the sham of the so-called resolution of the distinguished junior Senator from South Carolina because he worries about the year 2042 hours before we are going to war and totally disregards the law. I will propose an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the Budget Act, section 13301. Section 13301 was a very deliberate and discussed matter that we had not only in the Budget Committee, but I had help on both sides of the aisle, and we voted on it 98 to 2. It was signed into law on November 5, 1990, by President George Herbert Walker Bush. It signed into law the Greenspan commission. With this particular Graham of South Carolina resolution, one would think there was no President Bush commission. President Bush's commission was chaired, I think, by one of our distinguished former Members, the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, who is under the weather and we all pray for his speedy recovery, but we have that commission report on what to do. This resolution says we really are concerned about Social Security at this particular point but, by passing this resolution, we want everybody to disregard the fact that this day, this week, this year, this budget, we will be spending Social Security trust funds in order to afford a tax cut. That is all it is. It is an absolute sham. They know it, and I know it. Section 21 of the Greenspan commission said, put this money in a trust off budget. If we had adhered to it, I think we would have about a $1.3 trillion trust fund. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, said we have always taken from the general fund in order to pay for Social Security, but that is not right. I have two pages of the 2003 annual report of the Social Security Commission, page 4 and page 5. I ask unanimous consent that those two pages be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Do you object?

Mr. HOLLINGS. That would be acceptable. Amendment No. 274, As Modified

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the agreement we had that I be recognized now should be vitiated. It is not necessary.

Mr. HOLLINGS. A sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Right, mine would be the sense of the Senate. So I don't know--may I ask unanimous consent, then, to be recognized at the end, not to make a point of order? I ask unanimous consent that when the time expires, I may be recognized to have considered the amendment, or voted on the amendment that I have at the desk.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Very good. I yield the floor. I think I have made my point. I ask the Chair, is it still a sense-of-the-Senate resolution? What is the form?

Mr. HOLLINGS. On page 6 you will see that the appropriate levels of the public debt are as follows: Fiscal year 2003, $6,687,816,000,000, but for the fiscal year 2013, the public debt is $11,919,328,000,000. So it is an increase of $5.2 trillion. Good gosh, I said ``trillion.'' I was hoping to say ``billion.'' The debt goes up, up, and away. Well, we know what the interest cost is going to be on that. That is going to be in excess of $600 or $700 billion a year. We just can't afford that. Let me say to the distinguished colleague from South Carolina, again, I was here in the 1970s. I was here in the 1980s. We didn't spend the Social Security trust fund, but we were beginning to drain it at the very end of the 1970s. And we appointed the Greenspan commission, and the Greenspan commission put on a graduated increase in taxes over the years to take care of the baby boomers in the next generation, exactly what my colleague from South Carolina is talking about. We foresaw that. It was supposed to build up these reserves and surpluses. That is exactly what has occurred. I refer, since it is already in the record, to page 4 of the annual report of the Social Security trust fund that was issued on Monday. It shows at the end of 2002, we had assets in the Social Security trust of $1.378 trillion. Of course, they have been spending the money on any and everything but Social Security. You can propose plan A, and plan B. You can talk about 2018 and 2042 and all those other funny little things until you are blue in the face. But unless and until you stop spending Social Security moneys on everything but Social Security, none of those plans is going to work--whether you privatize or not. That is why the Congress, under the leadership of President George Herbert Walker Bush, in November of 1990, wrote into law section 13301. I want to put Section 13301 into the amendment to make it crystal clear. I don't mind some of the whereases--and I understand the Senator from North Dakota wants to try to move things along and accommodate my colleague from South Carolina in taking a sense of the Senate. But there is no way in the world to make that a bill because there is no way to write it. You have to provide what the budget impact is, and everything else like that, and have it appraised. So it remains as a sense of the Senate at the desk. So that we can clear the air from this particular sham, I raise a point of order under section 305 of the Budget Act that sense-of-the-Senate resolutions are nongermane.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate more than 36 years and there is no question that Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie has been the best Senate Chaplain I've ever seen, by far. On this his last day, I join my colleagues in thanking him for the spiritual care he has provided to all of us and our families, and especially for his daily prayers as we tackle the monumental responsibilities before us. My wife, Peatsy, and I pray for the health of his loving wife Mary Jane. And we are confident that as the Chaplain leaves Washington and returns to California good things await him. For in Psalm 92 it is written that the righteous shall flourish like the palm-tree and that in maturity they shall bring forth fruit and be full of vitality and richness. There is no more worthy son of the Creator to flourish in retirement than Dr. Ogilvie.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Department of Labor, recently released the latest unemployment results and at first blush, the 5.8 percent figure, while certainly too high, does not seem overly alarming. It is only with a look behind the numbers that some disturbing trends become apparent. February marked the 31st consecutive month, since July 2000, that manufacturing employment has declined. This is the longest consecutive monthly decline in the post World War II era. Already, more than 2 million manufacturing jobs are gone. A generation ago, in 1974, manufacturing workers were 26 percent of the workforce, today they account for only 12.5 percent of the workforce. For all of 2002, industrial production fell 0.6 percent following a 3.5 percent decline in 2001. That represented the first back-to-back annual declines in industrial output since 1974-1975. Unfortunately, no end is in sight. By some measures, the manufacturing job loss is twice as bad as the last recession in the early Nineties. The 2002 Producer Price Index revealed the worst deflation in producer prices since 1949, suggesting that there is little incentive to restart the shuttered factories. Prices for manufactured goods were down 1.5 percent in December from a year earlier. Next to a 1.6 percent year-to-year drop in November, it was the largest decline of such prices on record going back to 1958. And all this has occurred against the backdrop of 2 years of substantial fiscal stimulus and the most aggressive monetary policy in anyone's memory. But this wasn't suppose to happen. Globalization was going to create a gentle prosperity that would create jobs, lift our standard of living and improve our communities. During the Clinton era, we entered into a series of international trade agreements, most notably NAFTA, WTO and China's entrance into the WTO, designed to increase trade and stimulate manufacturing job creation. The second Bush administration continues this policy, trotting around the globe negotiating, free-trade agreements within every region of the world. Recently, the administration concluded agreements with Singapore and Chile. After nearly a decade of the NAFTA/WTO free-trade experiment and after a year of ``recovery'', it seems appropriate to review whether this free trade era is working? The answer is clearly no. Our factories have been swamped by a flood of imports. Each month seems to bring a record trade deficit and more stories of plants closing and moving offshore. Our communities, particularly the rural ones, are quite literally emptying out. During the nineties, imports soared by more than 107 percent. Our trade surplus with Mexico dissolved soon after NAFTA went into effect. From 1991 to 2001, our trade deficit went from $77 billion to $427 billion, costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs. Essentially, our trading partners are exporting their unemployment to us. Recently, Ed Yardeni, chief investment strategist of Prudential Securities, noted that while the United States currently has 16.3 million manufacturing jobs, some 20 million rural Chinese move to seek better-paying manufacturing and construction jobs in the cities, each year. There seems to be no end in sight to pain being experienced by our manufacturing sector. Even a declining dollar is not improving our trade situation, as our factories race to re-establish overseas. It seems like recognizing where our problem is coming from would be a good first step toward solving it. So today I introduce legislation designed to help get American manufacturing off the canvas. It is broad and wide ranging. The legislation would eliminate the tax benefits associated with off- shore production, whether its by a United States or foreign-based company. It would eliminate the incentives for companies to move their headquarters outside of the United States. It would prevent the Export Import Bank or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation from funding any project that did not contain at least 80 percent U.S. content. It would eliminate the International Trade Commission. It would provide for an additional 500 Customs agents to enforce the tariff and quota rules associated with the textile trade. It would prohibit the sale in interstate commerce of any manufactured product made by anyone under twelve. It would reform WTO dispute settlement by establishing a panel of Federal judges to review the determinations that these dispute panels are reaching. It would express the Senate's strong support for the Byrd amendment which returns anti-dumping monies to injured parties. Finally, the legislation would extend the Buy America provisions for the Defense Department contained in the Berry amendment to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. It's just a start, but we have to begin the process of rejuvenating the American manufacturer.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Department of Labor, recently released the latest unemployment results and at first blush, the 5.8 percent figure, while certainly too high, does not seem overly alarming. It is only with a look behind the numbers that some disturbing trends become apparent. February marked the 31st consecutive month, since July 2000, that manufacturing employment has declined. This is the longest consecutive monthly decline in the post World War II era. Already, more than 2 million manufacturing jobs are gone. A generation ago, in 1974, manufacturing workers were 26 percent of the workforce, today they account for only 12.5 percent of the workforce. For all of 2002, industrial production fell 0.6 percent following a 3.5 percent decline in 2001. That represented the first back-to-back annual declines in industrial output since 1974-1975. Unfortunately, no end is in sight. By some measures, the manufacturing job loss is twice as bad as the last recession in the early Nineties. The 2002 Producer Price Index revealed the worst deflation in producer prices since 1949, suggesting that there is little incentive to restart the shuttered factories. Prices for manufactured goods were down 1.5 percent in December from a year earlier. Next to a 1.6 percent year-to-year drop in November, it was the largest decline of such prices on record going back to 1958. And all this has occurred against the backdrop of 2 years of substantial fiscal stimulus and the most aggressive monetary policy in anyone's memory. But this wasn't suppose to happen. Globalization was going to create a gentle prosperity that would create jobs, lift our standard of living and improve our communities. During the Clinton era, we entered into a series of international trade agreements, most notably NAFTA, WTO and China's entrance into the WTO, designed to increase trade and stimulate manufacturing job creation. The second Bush administration continues this policy, trotting around the globe negotiating, free-trade agreements within every region of the world. Recently, the administration concluded agreements with Singapore and Chile. After nearly a decade of the NAFTA/WTO free-trade experiment and after a year of ``recovery'', it seems appropriate to review whether this free trade era is working? The answer is clearly no. Our factories have been swamped by a flood of imports. Each month seems to bring a record trade deficit and more stories of plants closing and moving offshore. Our communities, particularly the rural ones, are quite literally emptying out. During the nineties, imports soared by more than 107 percent. Our trade surplus with Mexico dissolved soon after NAFTA went into effect. From 1991 to 2001, our trade deficit went from $77 billion to $427 billion, costing us hundreds of thousands of jobs. Essentially, our trading partners are exporting their unemployment to us. Recently, Ed Yardeni, chief investment strategist of Prudential Securities, noted that while the United States currently has 16.3 million manufacturing jobs, some 20 million rural Chinese move to seek better-paying manufacturing and construction jobs in the cities, each year. There seems to be no end in sight to pain being experienced by our manufacturing sector. Even a declining dollar is not improving our trade situation, as our factories race to re-establish overseas. It seems like recognizing where our problem is coming from would be a good first step toward solving it. So today I introduce legislation designed to help get American manufacturing off the canvas. It is broad and wide ranging. The legislation would eliminate the tax benefits associated with off- shore production, whether its by a United States or foreign-based company. It would eliminate the incentives for companies to move their headquarters outside of the United States. It would prevent the Export Import Bank or the Overseas Private Investment Corporation from funding any project that did not contain at least 80 percent U.S. content. It would eliminate the International Trade Commission. It would provide for an additional 500 Customs agents to enforce the tariff and quota rules associated with the textile trade. It would prohibit the sale in interstate commerce of any manufactured product made by anyone under twelve. It would reform WTO dispute settlement by establishing a panel of Federal judges to review the determinations that these dispute panels are reaching. It would express the Senate's strong support for the Byrd amendment which returns anti-dumping monies to injured parties. Finally, the legislation would extend the Buy America provisions for the Defense Department contained in the Berry amendment to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. It's just a start, but we have to begin the process of rejuvenating the American manufacturer.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Dottie Ashley for receiving the prestigious Elizabeth O'Neill Verner Award from the South Carolina Arts Commission. As a long-time arts writer for my hometown newspaper, the Post and Courier, Dottie has done as much to promote cultural life in Charleston for the last decade as anyone in our city. This is an honor well deserved. I ask to print in the Record an excerpt of a recent Post and Courier article, so that all my colleagues can see the accomplishments of this wonderful southern lady. The article follows: [From the Post and Courier, February 27, 2003] Local Artist, Arts Writer, Cultural Affairs Office Among Verner Winners (By Dave Munday) Dottie Ashley has been at the Post and Courier since 1991, following 15 years at The State newspaper. She has covered the Spoleto Festival since it started, the commissioners said. They also noted that she: Won a fellowship to the Eugene O'Neill Theater Center in Connecticut to review new plays; won a dance critics' fellowship to Russia to observe the classic Vaganova method of teaching ballet; won the American Dance Festival Critics' Award to Duke University; was chosen by the Partners of the Americas to represent the state in South America in 1982 and 1984. The Columbia Record won a Verner Award in 1981 when Ashley was arts editor, and The Post and Courier won the award in 1994 when she was chief arts writer. ``Her reviews and weekly Arts in her Charleston column offer comprehensive, sensitive coverage of the Charleston area's arts and cultural life, and her in-depth reviews of New York theater have expanded audiences for theater by all readers,'' the commissioners said in a statement.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. What will happen when we have the budget debate is they will have leadership amendments. They will have something on prescription drugs and they will have something on some other thing, whatever it is. Then the real important ones you submit for 2 minutes. You describe your amendment and everybody votes. Senators will not get the opportunity to see this, so I hope they will all get this out of the Congressional Record. When you talk about digging that hole, let me show you the hole we are really in. If, we have a deficit of $554 billion for this year, and last year we had a $428 billion deficit, and next year they project a $569 billion deficit--that, added together, is $1.5 trillion. That is $1.5 trillion of stimulus. We don't need a little dividend cut, or a little marriage penalty elimination to stimulate the economy. What we need is money and certainly not tax cuts, certainly not digging the hole. You are in a dickens of a hole if you are already in $1.5 trillion in deficit without the cost of Iraq. For my colleagues, let me try to put this in perspective. If you add up all the deficits from Harry Truman in 1945 to Gerald Ford in 1975-- if you take the 30 years cumulative of all deficits, which include the cost of World War II, the cost of Korea, the cost of Vietnam--it adds up to $358 billion. We are already talking, not $300 some billion over 30 years, but we are talking about $554 billion this year without the cost of Iraq. You are in real trouble when you have to estimate that and you see the interest cost now. Lyndon Johnson was the last President to balance the budget. In 1968-1969 he had a surplus. That is the last time. I was here. In fact, we met over on the House side, the distinguished chair-- George Mahon was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We didn't have a Budget Committee. I am almost convinced that we ought to go back to that because there was a conscience. This whole budget process has now become a charade. But George Mahon said, you know the President is very, very sensitive about this guns and butter. We have to do something else, a little bit more if we are really going to balance it. He said, Call over to Marvin Watson and ask the President if we can cut another $5 billion, and we cut another $5 billion. If I am not mistaken, the budget at that time for guns, butter, the war in Vietnam was $178 billion. Now we have a budget of almost $2.1 trillion. We pay $324 billion in interest per year--it is estimated that when the interest rates go back up, it will be back up to a billion a day in interest. The first thing the Government does every morning at 8 when the banks open is borrow another $1 billion, every morning except Sunday this year. They are going to go down every day, including Saturday, including holidays. They will go down and borrow and add it to the debt. That is why we are running this $554 billion deficit. But these interest costs are just saddling us, when we are paying over $300-some billion in interest, as much as the defense budget, and all just waste just because we didn't pay our way. We used to pay our way. We used to pay for the war. Yes, tell my friend Robert Novak when he constantly says we are going to pay for the war by borrowing just like we did for guns and butter in Vietnam--no, no. President Lyndon Johnson paid and balanced the budget then. You have seen exactly what the score is with respect to digging a hole. I want to get right into the point of this so-called tax cut because nobody was better at stopping digging the hole and recognizing it, of course, than Mr. David Stockman. I had just come off the chairmanship of the Budget Committee, and I went over with Mr. Alan Greenspan to the Blair House and briefed President Reagan in December of 1980. I will never forget, the President said: Whoops, I had promised to balance the budget in 1 year. From what you gentlemen are telling me it is going to take 3 years. That is when we went from a 1-year budget to 3 years. In 1981, I opposed those tax cuts, Reaganomics, what George Bush senior called voodoo. I opposed voodoo I. I opposed the increase in spending at that time because we all had a sense of responsibility. In order to stick it out and be able to serve around here, you have to go with the flow like the traffic in downtown Hanoi. Listen to this, from page 342 of ``The Triumph of Politics'': The President had no choice but to repeal or substantially dilute the tax cut that would have gone far toward restoring the stability of the strongest capitalist economy in the world. Ronald Reagan chose not to be a leader but a politician. His obstinacy was destined to keep America's economy hostage to the errors of his advisers for a long, long time. So under President Reagan, we had an $85.7 billion deficit in 1981, and it went up to $142.5 billion in 1982. That is when he was cutting taxes. The next thing you know it was up to $234 billion and he ended up with a $252 billion deficit by his eighth year in office. Then President George Herbert Walker Bush came in and he ended up with a $403 billion deficit. We never had over $100 billion in deficit until voodoo I came along. Let me talk about voodoo II. I watched that because I have been in the budget lead now for quite some time. I come from a State where in order to be elected governor you have to promise to pay the bill. But in that same State, in order to be elected to the Senate you have to promise not to pay the bill. I am against the government of let us cut taxes. So I know whereof I speak. I have experience in the budget. What happened when Governor Bush in September of 2000 said on the campaign trail said he was going to cut taxes. I sort of shook my head and smiled. I said, Well, that is campaign talk. That is not going to happen for the simple reason that we can't afford to be cutting taxes. But I sort of sobered up on the Friday after the election--on Tuesday in November 2000. That is when Vice President-elect Cheney said, Yes, that is what we are going to do. When Vice President-elect Cheney said we were going to cut taxes, there was no recession yet. Please listen. Harken all. Lend me your ears, for I can tell you what really started that recession in 2001. It was when Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, came on January 25, 2001 before the Budget Committee and he attested to the fact that we were paying down too much debt. He gave title and interest to the young President George W. Bush. He gave him the go-ahead with this $5.6 trillion debt. Secretary of Treasury John Snow, former head of CSX and who used to head up the Business Roundtable, was always coming into my office because we were big admirers of CSX. He was always coming in worried about the budget and the deficits. When I talked to him on the phone before he became Secretary, I said, ``John, I see you are giving up two things.'' He said, ``What's that?'' I said, ``You are giving up your membership at Augusta National Golf Club, and you have given up any chance of balancing the budget and getting this Government out of the red. You are giving up on the deficit now, and you are going to head for deficits.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this 2001 debt time line schedule printed in the Record.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with respect to the Estrada nomination, this Senator has no reason to vote to confirm and everyone should understand up front that I have treated my responsibility with serious purpose, always giving the benefit of the doubt to the President. I was one of the two Democrats who voted for Robert Bork, and I am particularly proud that I did vote for him. Robert Bork was an outstanding jurist. He answered the questions. So when these folks come up and apply for a job, they ought to treat the advise and consent responsibility that we have as Senators with respect. They should not go to the committee and give the rope-a-dope runaround and then come back later and have the White House calling Senators saying: Would you like to see the gentleman? I have heard the whining cry again and again that this is all unconstitutional. I wish they would have been present when Justice Fortas, the Associate Justice for the Supreme Court, was nominated by President Lyndon Johnson to become the Chief Justice. My senior colleague at the time, the distinguished Senator Thurmond, led the filibuster. There was extended debate, and please note it in the Record that they had a cloture vote. They could not get cloture and--read it in the Record--they then withdrew the nomination. The leadership in the Senate should get on with the important business of this Government at a time of war, at a time of dreadful deficit spending, at a time when they will not even pay for the war. I can say now that every President, every Congress, has paid for wars, and I am embarrassed to be a Senator at this particular time to go home to my state and report that we are not going to pay for this war. It was Abraham Lincoln, in order to pay for the Civil War, who put a tax on dividends. And now this President says the need of the hour is to take the tax off dividends. During World War I we had a marginal income tax rate that went up to 77 percent. In World War II, it was 79 percent to 94 percent. In the Korean War, it was 91 percent, and the country sustained. The country did not break up. The country did not go poor. The country was stimulated by a sense of responsibility. This Mickey Mouse idea that dividends are going to stimulate the economy--come on. In the Vietnam War, we had a marginal tax rate up to 77 percent. But we have the unmitigated gall to now say we need to stimulate the economy with a dividend tax cut, with doing away with the marriage penalty, and with eliminating the estate tax. It is quite obvious what is on course is tax reform. There is no sense of responsibility for this position. It helped when, with Senator Muskie, we passed in 1973 and it was finally signed in 1974 the Budget Committee process. I have served on that Budget Committee for the past 25, 26 years, including as Chairman. I am the author, along with Senator Gramm and Senator Rudman, of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings when President Reagan said we were not going to have to run deficits anymore. We had truth in budgeting. On Saturday, we got the truth from the Congressional Budget Office. It projected the pending deficit for the fiscal year which we are in now, 2003, on page 21, at the back of the document would be $469 billion. The distinguished Presiding Officer knows this by heart because he has served on the Budget Committee on the House side. This is important because that is the actual debt increase, that is the actual deficit. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the lead editorial from today's Washington Post, ``Digging the Budget Hole.''

Mr. HOLLINGS. Everyone can read the entire article, but let me read the sentence: ``The deficit numbers above are cushioned by including $2.6 trillion from the Social Security trust fund.'' I have to read that again: ``The deficit numbers above are cushioned by including $2.6 trillion from the Social Security trust fund.'' The following sentence: ``In other words, if that money were placed out of reach, the deficit would be $4.4 trillion through 2013.'' Now, that is just the Social Security trust fund. The Social Security trust fund is not the only one being expended. There is the Medicare trust fund. They take the surpluses, and they are going to say we have to do something on Medicare, but they have been spending the moneys on anything and everything other than Medicare. The same can be said with the highway trust funds, the airport trust funds, and the military and public service retirees. We have all kinds of trust funds, and if they were all included, rather than the $4.4 trillion, it would be $5.7 trillion. This Enron-like accounting operation is right in the President's budget book. If you look at page 1--and I hold within my hand the budget for the fiscal year 2004 that was just released last month--it says: ``My administration firmly believes in controlling the deficit and reducing it as the economy strengthens and our national security interests are met. Compared to the overall Federal budget and the $10.5 trillion national economy, our budget cap is small by historical standards.'' That is on page 1. Now, Kenny Boy Lay, when he put out his Enron corporate report to the stockholders, that is exactly the way he would start off. Make the stockholders feel good. Make the taxpayers feel good. Make the public servants feel responsible. But where is the truth? You will have to go all the way through to page 332. I ask unanimous consent that page 332, by itself, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you will see the total gross Federal debt whereby it goes from $6.198 trillion at the end of last fiscal year to, as projected at the end of this fiscal year, $6.752 trillion, for a deficit of $554 billion. And they are running around here, in this newspaper, continuing to say $300 billion deficits. We already are projecting, without the cost of Iraq--this does not include the cost of going to war in Iraq--a $554 billion deficit. And if you look at next year, the 2004 debt is increased from $6.752 trillion to $7.321 trillion, for a deficit of $569 billion for next year. On Wednesday, at the Budget Committee, the fix will be in. We used to have some moderates on the Budget Committee, but the leadership took the moderates off, so it will be bam-bam. On Wednesday the Committee will have a conference and then on Thursday we will have amendments. It will be the Democrats who will have amendments because the Republicans are a fixed jury. They are a fixed jury, and they are not going to go along with any amendments, and they are going along with the President's budget and the President's tax cut because that is the makeup of the Republicans when they got rid of the moderates. Before that we at least had a chance to talk and discuss with each other, but now the budget process that we instituted back in 1974 is pure sham. Their goal is to get those reconciliation instructions that by majority vote they will have. Then by majority vote they can pass all these tax cuts and everything else that they have, under limited time. You can't have extended debate. So the fix is on--unfortunately for the country. According to the Committee for Economic Development, ``The first step in climbing out of a hole is to stop digging. We cannot afford economic policy decisions today that further raise deficits tomorrow.'' Congress ought to put down that shovel. That is the most important thing we have going, even more important than war. I think we can win the war. I don't think we are going to win this. This is terrible. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the ``Hollings' Budget Realities'' chart.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have on January 25 the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, saying we are paying down too much debt. On February 27, 2001, the President submitted his budget for the first time, and he said, in essence, I protect Social Security. I have $2.6 trillion to protect Social Security. I have $2 trillion for defense and domestic programs, and I have $1 trillion for unforeseen circumstances. At the time Chairman Greenspan spoke, we were still in the red in deficits--$65 billion. When the distinguished President spoke on February 27 for the first time to Congress, we were $53 billion in the red. On April 15, the income tax time to make the returns, we were $94 billion in the red. But with all the tax payments coming in on April 15, by April 30 we were in the black by $13 billion. On May 1, we were $23 billion in the black. On June 1, we were $4 billion in the black. From the end of April to the first of June, we were in the black. But on June 7, the President signed the $1.7 billion tax cut, and by June 28, 20 days after he put his signature to the tax cut, we were $52 billion in the red. On September 10, we were $99 billion in the red. They all said 9/11 caused this deficit. No. The day before 9/11, we were already, as a result of the tax cut, $99 billion in the red when the President was talking about $1 trillion for unforeseen circumstances. We have only authorized since 9/11 for the 2002 war on terrorism $20 billion. At the Congressional Budget Office they say 9/11 will only cost us $34 billion. Give them the double amount--some $60 billion that 9/11 may have cost. But it didn't cost any trillion dollars, and it didn't cause us to go back into the red. The tax cut is what we are suffering from. And thereby, as the Washington Post said, the first rule is to stop digging. But we will be meeting on Wednesday and Thursday with the Budget Committee, and there they will be determined to come in with shovels and dig as deep as they possibly can. I happened to have fought with the French in World War II, and they are outstanding fighters. We are talking about NATO, how brave we are, how we are going into Iraq. I wish we had the courage to pay the bill. They say it is small by historical standards; that is, the deficit is 2.7 percent of the gross domestic product. But when you look at the actual debt, when they don't use Social Security, then the deficit as a percent of the gross domestic product is 5.7 percent. The Greenspan Commission recommended that you are not to use Social Security trust funds, as the editorial points out, and that is exactly how they have lowered the deficit. You see, when the editorial says, ``The deficit numbers above are cushioned by including $2.6 trillion from the Social Security trust fund,'' that is against the law, Senator. That is against, section 13- 301, which passed the Senate 98 to 2. I wanted it to pass unanimously, but I could not get Senator Armstrong's vote. That is the one I missed, along with Senator Boschwitz's. I had the greatest--and still have the greatest--respect for both Senator Boschwitz and Senator Armstrong. I could not get their vote, but I got everyone else's. It went to President Bush senior on November 5, 1990, and he signed that into law. So under law, you are not supposed to be spending Social Security moneys on anything other than Social Security. For the Social Security trust funds, you can see that here we have spent $1.489 trillion. Everybody is running around saying: Save Social Security. We are going to have to reform Social Security. We are going to have to do this and do that. All they need to do is quit spending Social Security moneys on any and everything but Social Security. That is the whole problem. Of course, you can see what they are spending for Medicare, military retirement to civilian retirement, the unemployment compensation fund, the highways, the airports, the railroad retirement, and others. We are spending some $2.7 trillion already of all of these other trust funds. Yet we are going to do something on account of the baby boomers? I want to do something on account of the adults and get some conscience to this group up here and some awareness to the media and everybody to understand, let's have truth in budgeting. The Secretary of the Treasury puts it out every day--the public debt, to the penny--and you can see how much the debt goes up. The debt clock is running every second in New York for the people to see. But we give them Enron accounting. It is small here, and we have another figure here, and everything else. So you can see we are spending a little over $40-some billion per month. I think with that chart, and the distinguished Senator from Utah being here, I am sure I am using the Hatch rule on Estrada. Under the Hatch rule, you said, on another Hispanic nominee we had at one time, that you were worried she would be an activist and would legislate from the bench. That is exactly what I am worried about with Estrada. I appreciate the time of the body. I would be glad if somebody wants to debate Mr. Estrada. Tell them I know very little about him except for the fact that when he was given the opportunity to come up to get my vote for confirmation, he elected to rudely not answer. I know the gimmick, and I know what they are doing. I voted for Robert Bork. David Boren of Oklahoma and myself were the two Democrats who voted for Robert Bork. I am delighted to vote for conservatives. My State is conservative. But don't send a fellow up and think he can engage in that kind of monkey business of not even answering the questions. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I am inserting an article from a recent Post and Courier about one of my home State's legendary blacksmiths, Philip Simmons. He is a 90-year-old retiree, who was told 70 years ago that the car would kill the market for blacksmiths. Yet, to this day, he still passes his knowledge of the art on to young people, and I think we can all be inspired by his enthusiasm for an old American art that he won't let be lost. The citizens of my state have the opportunity to see and enjoy Mr. Simmons' work all over Charleston. In 1975, he forged a piece for the Smithsonian that all Americans can take delight in. As he continues to stay active and show his work, I hope my colleagues in the Senate join this admirer of a great American in wishing him health and happiness in the years to come. I ask to print the article in the Record. The article follows: [From the Post and Courier, Feb. 19, 2003] Inspires Others (By Penny Parker) Master blacksmith Philip Simmons hasn't slowed down much since turning 90 last June. He still takes any chance he gets to pass on his enthusiasm for ornamental iron working to future generations. As special guest of the Charleston Trident Home Builders Association, he will be doing just that at this year's Lowcountry Home and Garden Show at the Charleston Area Convention Center. Simmons will be at the show from 10 a.m. to noon on Saturday and from 2 to 4 p.m. on Sunday. Simmons and students from the School of the Building Arts (SoBA) will be on hand at the Home and Garden Show to offer insight into the building arts of the past, and the importance of passing on this knowledge to future generations. Simmons will answer questions and sign copies of his books and posters, which will be on sale during the show. Plant hangers with his named inscribed on them and jewelry made from his designs will be available as well. New items this year include Christmas ornaments, wrapping paper and a 2003 calendar also features ``Good Friday'' by Jonathan Green on the cover. Proceeds from the sales of these items go towards the Philip Simmons Foundation and its effort to build the Philip Simmons Blacksmith Museum at the Camden Towers Cultural Arts Center, which is set to be completed in 2004. Simmons was born on Daniel Island on June 9, 1912, and moved to the Charleston peninsula when he was 8 years old. He became an apprentice for blacksmith Peter Simmons (no relation) at the age of 13. he started out shoeing horses and repairing and making wagon wheels in Peter Simmons' shop on Calhoun Street. Once cars became the more popular mode of transportation, he switched to making trailers, but big businesses such as Sears soon put an end to that venture. In 1938, he switched to ornamental iron work when a client commissioned him to make a gate from a set of plans. The rest is history. Over the years, he as fashioned more than 500 decorative pieces of ornamental wrought iron gates, fences, balconies and window grills. His work can be seen throughout Charleston, in Columbia and even at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. In 1982, the National Endowment for the Arts awarded him its National Heritage Fellowship, the highest honor the United States can bestow on a traditional artist. This was followed by a similar award from the South Carolina state legislature for ``life-time achievement'' and commissions for public sculptures by the S.C. State Museum and the City of Charleston. Simmons was inducted into the S.C. Hall of Fame in Myrtle Beach on Jan. 31, 1994. Pieces of Simmons' work have been acquired by the National Museum of American History at the Smithsonian Institute, the Museum of International Folk Art in Santa Fe, N.M., the Richland County Public Library and the Atlanta History Center. Two gardens in Charleston have been dedicated in Simmons' name, one at his church, St. John's Reformed Episcopal Church at 91 Anson St., and a children's garden at 701 East Bay St., near his house and workshop. While the awards and accolades mean a great deal to Simmons, one of his big thrills now comes from teaching his craft and passing on the artistry of ornamental iron work to a new generation of craftsmen. ``I don't want it (ornamental wrought iron work) to become a lost art,'' he says. ``I can't work anymore, but I can teach. A lot of young people see the need to keep these old crafts going, and they want to learn.'' Simmons teaches workshops at SoBA and has students come to his shop for hands-on lessons also. He gladly welcomes visitors to his workshop on Charleston's East Side because he sees it as a way to pass on the old way of working with wrought iron. ``I bring people to look at the shop all the time,'' he says. ``It reminds them of the past. You had to use these hands. There were no machines. ``The machines can cut the wood and the iron, but it's not the same. It's not the art. You can create so many things with that forge. You can really knock yourself out.'' Of all the pieces Simmons has crafted, he says his favorite piece is the one he made at the Smithsonian Institute in 1975 and which has been on display there ever since. ``The one at the Columbia (State) Museum and the one at the (Charleston International) Airport are the prettiest. The Smithsonian one with the fish, the moon and the stars might not be the prettiest, but it shows the country what is going on in South Carolina. So many people have seen it and can learn my craft. That's the piece I love the best, not for looks, but for its purpose in serving this country.'' Simmons adds that although many people tried to tell him that the car would kill the market for blacksmiths, he never thought of leaving the field. ``In the '30s and '40s, people told me that blacksmith was a dying art. I would shake my head and say, `OK.' That didn't stop me. I didn't close up shop and go work at the Navy Yard or something. I kept on going, and made a great living at it. Not rich, but live well and take care of my family. Now I want to get people excited about it and pass it on. ``Craftsmen enjoy making things people have never seen. It's a joy. That's what keeps me going. ``I'd be in there beating on that forge right now if my health were good. But I do enjoy passing it on.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I want to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Linda Morgan, as she prepares to leave the Surface Transportation Board next month. She has been a Commissioner of the Board, and its predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, since 1994, much of that time as Chairman. As such, she demonstrated real leadership, presiding when there were difficult years for the railroad industry as many companies merged. I know Linda's excellent work firsthand. She served for 15 years as a professional staff member with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and I was proud to name her the first female General Counsel to the Committee. It is fair to say that Linda Morgan is responsible for much of the legislation that established the framework for today's surface transportation system. Last month, the Washington Post interviewed Linda, seeking out her views on the railroad industry. I think it would do all members of this body well to read what this dedicated model of public service had to say. I ask to print the following article in the Record. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 2003] Railroad Regulator Linda Morgan Resigns (By Don Phillips) Linda J. Morgan, the federal official who saw the railroad industry through a decade of turbulent mergers, said she will resign from the Surface Transportation Board on April 8, almost nine months before her term expires. Morgan, a Democrat who had a cordial relationship with Bush administration officials, had been asked to remain as chairman until the administration could name a replacement, a process that took a year. Roger P. Nober, a Transportation Department official, was named chairman of the three-person board in December. Morgan's departure as a member had been expected. She said she will not decide on a future career until after she leaves. Chairman of that board and its predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, since March 23, 1995, Morgan presided over the Union Pacific-Southern Pacific merger in 1996 that resulted in a meltdown in rail service nationwide, and the 1999 division of Conrail between Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, which created serious service problems that were not solved for months. Those systems have recovered from their problems and service appears to be improving. The Surface Transportation Board, in addition to approving rail mergers, also has some powers in regulating the commercial end of the railroad industry. Morgan said she believes that the railroad industry has emerged from the merger period better, because the companies learned to pay closer attention to their customers and to day-by-day operations. ``This period without mergers has been good for the industry,'' she said. ``For a time, mergers were the answer to everything.'' But Morgan said she fears for the future of freight rail because the railroads, shippers, Congress and states are polarized over whether government should impose conditions to guarantee greater competition, which would cause freight rates to fall. Such ``open access'' proposals could hurt customers more than they help, she said. Everyone is trying to gain narrow advantage rather than engaging in a debate on what role railroads should play in the future, she said. Morgan said that freight railroads, although more successful than ever, do not yet earn enough to pay for the cost of maintaining and expanding their infrastructure. But she said the railroads may have a difficult time investing in infrastructure they would need to move more freight in the future, if some customers and Congress continue to push for even lower rates. ``Railroads can't be all things to all people,'' she said. ``They can't be giving people lower rates but then sustaining the network they have in place today and opening up their line to commuters for some sort of low cost. You can't do it all. Somehow the finances have to make sense.'' Unless there is a comprehensive and sensible debate, Morgan said, Congress and shippers may some day find that their only two choices are to let the industry shrink or to let the federal government take over the railroads or railroad infrastructure at a high cost. ``The customers want lower rates,'' she said. ``But do they also understand that over time, over some period of time, if all these rates keep coming down, then there won't be the revenue coming into the system to sustain the network that exists today in the private sector? Then will that mean the customers will lose service that they don't want to lose, and will they be prepared for that? ``Will members of Congress understand that if we go in certain directions from a policy position, and that ends up with a situation where there are not enough revenues coming into the system to sustain this rail network in the private sector, will they then be prepared to do what's necessary to do the next thing? . . . I want to make sure that everybody understands that is the challenge for the industry.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to present Rev. Joseph A. De Laine the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor for his heroic sacrifices to desegregate our public schools. His crusade to break down barriers in education forever scarred his own life, but led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. Eight years before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, Reverend De Laine, a minister and principal, organized African-American parents to petition the Summerton, SC, school board for a bus and gasoline so their children would not have to walk 10 miles to attend a segregated school. A year later, in Briggs v. Elliot, the parents sued to end segregation. It was a case that as a young lawyer I watched Thurgood Marshall argue before the Supreme Court as one of the five cases collectively known as Brown v. Board of Education. For this Senator, their arguments helped to shape my view on racial matters. For his efforts, Reverend De Laine was subjected to a reign of domestic terrorism. He lost his job. He watched his church and home burn. He was charged with assault and battery with intent to kill after shots were fired at his home and he fired back to mark the car. He had to leave South Carolina forever; relocate to New York, where he started an AME Church, and he eventually retired in North Carolina. Not until the year 2000, 26 years after his death and 45 years after the incident in his home was Reverend De Laine cleared of all charges. Last year, I spoke to the 100 descendants of Briggs v. Elliott, and I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record, which show the bravery of Reverend De Laine during a troubled time in our Nation's past, and which point to the immeasurable benefits he has given our Nation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on January 25, 2001, when Chairman Greenspan spoke, we were $65 billion in the red according to the Secretary of the Treasury. On February 27, 2001, when the distinguished new President gave his speech before the Senate--we were $53 billion in the red. On April 15, 2001, taxpaying day, we were $94 billion in the red. We had collected all that income tax on April 15 and on April 30, 2001, according to the Secretary of the Treasury, we had a surplus. And remember, they had been babbling all during the Christmas holidays and January and February of $5.6 trillion in surplus money, that we are paying off too much debt. There was all kinds of surplus talk. Let's go to May 1, 2001. We were $23 billion in the black. On June 1, we were $4 billion in the black. But on June 7, the President signed the $1.5 trillion tax cut, voodoo 2--we had voodoo 1, so he gave us voodoo 2. And what happened? What happened after June 7? By June 28, we were $52 billion in the red, and on September 10, one day before the tragic September 11, we were $99 billion in the red. We only had 20 more days of that fiscal year. If you go into their lingo, their little song and dance routine, they are trying to say they inherited a recession--they did not cause it, but they inherited a recession. They tell you we had corporate corruption, and we had 9/11, and on and on, and everybody is beginning to believe it. They have said it again and again. The truth is, as I've illustrated with these numbers, George Bush caused this economic downturn, and it is going to stay in a downturn with his newest tax cutting scheme, voodoo 3. Whoever heard of cutting taxes on the dividends, the marriage penalty, and all of these other things they have been coming up with and saying it is going to stimulate the economy? They know there is enough stimulus. They are under subterfuge, hiding, camouflaging tax reform under the auspices of a stimulus. The truth is, on September 30 last year, we ended up $428 billion in the red. President Bush, by his own budget, without the costs in Iraq, has already projected a $554 billion deficit this year, and his budget proposal for next year is $569 billion in the red. That is $1.5 trillion that we have not paid for, that we are infusing as a stimulus to the economy. We know we have to get ourselves on track as quickly as we possibly can. I ask unanimous consent that section 13301 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, section 21 said to put Social Security off budget in trust, not to be expended on anything other than Social Security. We spend Social Security trust funds on any and everything but Social Security. Has Mr. Greenspan thought of that solution: Just do not spend the Social Security taxes on every endeavor that we could possibly imagine but Social Security? I had a dickens of a time trying to get that written into law. It took me 7 years, and finally on November 5, 1990, George Walker Herbert Bush signed into law section 13301 of the Budget Act. It is the law of the land: You shall not report from the Congress or the President a budget including Social Security. But we do, and Alan Greenspan started that nonsense back in the eighties because he wanted to cover taking those moneys to go along with what Vice President Bush at that particular time called voodoo. Let me get up to voodoo 2 because we ought to understand, when this recession in the economy started. I am not an economist, but I am a politician. I have been chairman of the Budget Committee. I have worked with Alan Greenspan. I went over in 1980, right after the elections, to brief President-elect Reagan on the budget. We walked in the snow over to the Blair House. I will never forget it. President Reagan said he was going to balance the budget in 1 year, and after the briefing he said: Oops, I never realized how bad it was. It is going to take me 3 years. That is when we went from 1-year budgets to 3 years, and then under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings we went to 5 years, and later under Vice President Bush we went to 10 years. I suggest for this irresponsible Congress, let's go to 20. You can project anything and just keep on spending because that is exactly what we are doing. But let's jump back to September of the year 2000 when Governor Bush, now President Bush, was running. He said he was going to cut taxes. I knew how we had just gotten the best 8 years of economic growth in the history of the United States: with an increase in taxes. We were on the tail end of our recovery. We still had a deficit. We were trying to work toward a balanced budget, and I will give my colleagues the facts and figures. The point is, when he talked about cutting taxes, I thought, oh, heavens, we can't start that again; we are just getting back into the black. We had not gotten into the black in September 2000 nor in November, the Friday after the Tuesday election, when Vice President nominee Cheney, our good friend, said: Yes, that is exactly what we are going to do--cut taxes. When Vice President Cheney made that statement, go back and look at the market in October, November, December, and into January. The Republicans are trying to say the recession started in March 2000. No, it started in the fall of 2000 because of this tax cut idea and running up these enormous deficits and running up the interest costs and the borrowing. So what happened was, on January 25, Alan Greenspan appeared before the Budget Committee. What did the gentleman say? We were paying off too much debt. When he said we were paying off too much debt, that was right, title, and interest to this young new President, George W. Bush, coming into office for him to spend up to the ceiling. On February 27, I'll be darned if he didn't do just that. The new President came before the Senate in a joint session on February 27 and said: Here is my budget. I have $2.6 trillion to protect Social Security. I have $2 trillion for domestic and defense programs, and that leaves another $1 trillion for unforeseen circumstances. We had an unforeseen circumstances on September 11, later that year, but let's go down now and find out when this recession started and when we were really in the black and in the red. I have here the public debt to the penny as reported by the Secretary of the Treasury. The latest we have--February 27, 2003--is $218 billion. That is this fiscal year-- including September, October, November, December, January, and February, we got this country another $218 billion in debt. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to present Rev. Joseph A. De Laine the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor for his heroic sacrifices to desegregate our public schools. His crusade to break down barriers in education forever scarred his own life, but led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954. Eight years before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, Reverend De Laine, a minister and principal, organized African-American parents to petition the Summerton, SC, school board for a bus and gasoline so their children would not have to walk 10 miles to attend a segregated school. A year later, in Briggs v. Elliot, the parents sued to end segregation. It was a case that as a young lawyer I watched Thurgood Marshall argue before the Supreme Court as one of the five cases collectively known as Brown v. Board of Education. For this Senator, their arguments helped to shape my view on racial matters. For his efforts, Reverend De Laine was subjected to a reign of domestic terrorism. He lost his job. He watched his church and home burn. He was charged with assault and battery with intent to kill after shots were fired at his home and he fired back to mark the car. He had to leave South Carolina forever; relocate to New York, where he started an AME Church, and he eventually retired in North Carolina. Not until the year 2000, 26 years after his death and 45 years after the incident in his home was Reverend De Laine cleared of all charges. Last year, I spoke to the 100 descendants of Briggs v. Elliott, and I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record, which show the bravery of Reverend De Laine during a troubled time in our Nation's past, and which point to the immeasurable benefits he has given our Nation.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from North Dakota because his words are music to my ears. He is a student of competition. He knows there is no such thing as free trade. It is only competitive trade. Every nation necessarily tries to build up its manufacturing, its production, its economic strength not only in finished products, but in agriculture. The significance of the words of our distinguished colleague, Senator Dorgan, is that he is an agricultural Senator. For years, I have been trying, with the textile industry in my home State, to get some awareness of the fair competition in our textile industry, which is the most productive in the entire world. But since NAFTA, we have lost 58,100 jobs. As we have passed textile bills through the Senate over the past almost 37 years that I have been here, it has been the airline/aircraft industry that has been so strong. Well, Boeing is finally joining me. They have 7\1/2\-percent unemployment up in Seattle, WA, and Boeing is manufacturing in China. And our $435 billion trade deficit also includes a deficit in agriculture. No one has been a better protector of the interests of agriculture than the distinguished Presiding Officer. It is only the second time in our history that we have a deficit in the balance of trade in farm products. That is not news to this Senator from South Carolina. I remembered when we finally, just in the last few years, got a deficit in the balance of trade in cotton with China. So I understand it is going to all agricultural products. We have the facts and figures. I am ready to join in the debate for us to start treating foreign trade as foreign aid. It was good that the Marshall plan worked, but now we have to rebuild our economy, and that is a very important problem. But there is one more important thing, and that is this war in Iraq. What we are saying--and I talk advisedly--to that GI is this: Look, we want you to go into Iraq and we hope you come back home safely. The reason we want him or her to come back safely is not for their welfare, but for our welfare. We want them to come back because we are going to give them the bill. My generation is not going to pay for it. The fellow fighting the war is going to have to pay for the war. For the first time in the history of wars in the United States of America, we said the Army is going to war, but the country is not. The President is not going. The Congress is not going. Oh, we are going to wear that flag on our lapels. Yes, we are patriotic and we will give you patriotic talk anytime you want it. But as far as actual support, let's find out what the record shows because I had to listen to Bob Novak, the distinguished columnist on TV, the other night when he said: How are we going to pay for it? Just like we did in Vietnam. We borrowed the money. No, sir, we paid for Vietnam. I was in the room with George Mahone, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We called over to Marvin Watson and said: Ask the President if we can cut another $5 billion. He said cut it. Why? Because the President of the United States was very sensitive about guns and butter. He wanted to pay for both, and President Lyndon Baines Johnson paid for both. That is the last time we had a balanced budget in the history of this particular Senator being up here--back in 1968. Yes, we paid for guns and butter in Vietnam under President Johnson. Let's go back to the Civil War. I was amazed that President Abraham Lincoln instituted not only the income tax to pay for the Civil War, he instituted a tax on dividends. They have the unmitigated gall to say what we need now is a cut of all taxes on dividends when they were giving Trent Lott the bum's rush. The party of Lincoln, the party of Lincoln; that is all I heard on my TV at home. Where is Abraham Lincoln when we need him? He taxed dividends and instituted the income tax in 1861. They had to repeal it--they said it was unconstitutional--by 1870, but they paid for that war. They sacrificed. When you have a mutual sacrifice, then we are all committed. I believe the country is going to war in Iraq, not just the army. I want to pay for it. I put in a 1-percent value-added tax to pay for that war, and I can't get a hearing before the Finance Committee. I had a hearing before the Finance Committee when Lloyd Bentsen was the chairman. I brought in Dr. Cnossen, the expert who not only instituted that plan in Japan, the United Kingdom, and Canada, but knew all the ins and outs. He was my expert. He testified. As we were leaving the Dirksen Building that day, former Senator John Chafee turned to Chairman Bentsen and said: If we had a secret ballot, we would vote that matter out of the Finance Committee unanimously because we were beginning to run into these astronomical deficits as a result of voodoo 1 under President Ronald Reagan. In World War I, we raised taxes to pay for the war. During World War II, we had a marginal tax rate of 94 percent to pay for it. In the Korean war, we had a marginal rate of 91 percent. In Vietnam, we had a 77 percent rate. So we paid for wars. But not this Congress; no, no, we are not going to go. That is their war. I do not know whether it is for oil, for democracy, whatever the arguments--get rid of Saddam--but one thing is positive, I say to the Senator from Alabama, this Congress is not going to go. We are going to give the bills to the poor GI who fights the war. I think it is a dirty shame. It is an embarrassment to me that I cannot even get a hearing and nobody to even talk about paying for the war. This is a time of national sacrifice because it is a time of national commitment, but not a national commitment on the part of this particular war, I can tell you that now. I have a 1-percent tax proposed.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, that is correct.