Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the opening of the 1999 tobacco marketing season in my home state of South Carolina. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the United States is one of the world's leading producers of tobacco. It is second only to China in total tobacco production. Tobacco is the seventh largest U.S. crop, with over 130,000 tobacco farms in the United States. In South Carolina, tobacco is the top cash crop, worth about $200 million annually. It also generates over $1 billion in economic activity for my state. Tobacco production is responsible for more than 40,000 jobs on over 2,000 farms and continues to account for about one- fourth of all crops and around 13 percent of total crop and livestock agriculture in South Carolina. It has been a hard couple of years for tobacco farmers in my state. Last year, a settlement between the State Attorneys General and five tobacco companies was completed. This settlement has created insecurity in these farmers' lives, as well as in their communities. Once again tobacco quota was cut this year. The cut was 17 percent, which means that these farmers have seen their quota reduced by 35 percent over the last 2 years. In recent years, we have seen a rise in tobacco imports, as domestic purchases by companies have declined. This has had a direct effect on the economy of my state. Many of the rural towns in South Carolina have grown up around producing tobacco, and decreased demand for domestic tobacco has affected them greatly. I hope these companies see the need to purchase more domestic tobacco and decrease the amount of tobacco they import. It is imperative for these rural communities' economic stability that domestic tobacco purchases rise. Mr. President, in conclusion I want to wish the tobacco farmers and warehousemen in South Carolina the best of luck this year. I wish that I could be down in South Carolina for this festive occasion of opening day, but duty calls. Although I can't be there physically, they all know that I'm there in spirit. And as hard as I have worked in the past for them, they can expect me to work even harder to ensure farmers and their communities remain economically sound.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, Senator Levin, and myself, I move to recommit the bill to the Finance Committee with instructions that the committee report back within 3 days with an amendment that implements the Greenspan recommendations by deferring tax reductions and by taking any projected revenue surplus and actually reducing the national debt. Now, for days on end we have been talking about what Mr. Greenspan said here, what Mr. Greenspan said here. As our friend, the former Attorney General Mitchell said: Watch what we do, not what we say. He has been trying to stay the course; namely, just take, in a sense, any surpluses--don't argue about them, but if you can find them, then apply that to reducing the national debt. So often we say that all of us want to go to heaven but we don't want to do what is necessary to get there. All of us say we want to reduce or pay down the national debt, but we don't want to do what is necessary to get there. All you have to do in order to get there or reduce the debt is vote for this motion. I yield to Senator Lieberman.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Let me just say quickly to clear the Record that the Senator from Texas was talking about what the Republicans have done for the economy. I can tell you what they have done for the economy. They came in 1995, and for 1996 they worked, of course, on the budget. They immediately increased spending for the next year of $148 billion. They increased spending, and the budget went up another $50 billion. This year, of course, it is another $50 billion, and they have added. The track record will show that they have added $661 billion to the national debt. But what did President Clinton do in 1993? And we did not have the largest tax increase. That was under Senator Dole. I will show the articles analyzing both. But I readily acknowledge that I voted and supported and worked like a tiger to get the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 passed, which prevailed by one vote. Yes, we did cut spending, we did downsize over 300,000 Federal jobs. But more than anything else, yes, we raised taxes. The Senator from Texas, when we raised the taxes on Social Security, was adamantly opposed to that, and he said--I will use his expression-- you increase taxes on Social Security and they will hunt you Democrats down in the streets and shoot you like dogs. The Senator from South Carolina never forgot that expression. That is how tough we had it. They were going to hunt us down. Of course, the chairman of the Finance Committee at that time, Senator Packwood, said, ``I will give you my home if this thing works.'' The chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Kasich, said, ``I will change parties and become a Democrat if this thing works.'' And it is working. That is a tremendous frustration I have because it is working. We have the lowest unemployment, the lowest inflation, and the economy is moving along. Mr. Greenspan, not just on yesterday but earlier in the year, in February, said stay the course. My usually responsible Republican friends--I come from a Republican State, unfortunately--have given us what was called outrageous on Monday by the best of the best conservatives, Kevin Phillips--I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one sentence of his commentary: ``We can fairly call the House legislation the most outrageous tax package in the last 50 years.'' That is why I come to the floor to speak. I agree with Mr. Phillips. This tax bill turns everything on its backside when we have a good going economy, and the Republicans come in with, of all things, a tax cut. How come? I will tell Members exactly. I can't find out what was first, the chicken or the egg, but OMB got into this blooming 2000 election, and CBO has a Republican--not any Alice Rivlin or Bob Reischauer, but they have a Republican fix--Mr. Crippen over at CBO. I have been working on this budget since we passed it back in 1973. Both CBO and OMB started finding money. How we could as a party put in tax cuts and have the real issue for the election 2000. This is very interesting. You don't find the word ``unified, unified, unified.'' That is all I have heard for the last 20 years--unified. It is not a unified budget. It is an outright budget surplus. That is what the CBO called it. It is not a budget surplus at all. The fact is, and I will quote the figures, the debt goes up each year for the next 5 years. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record from the CBO report on page 19.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Gross Federal debt, on page 19: In the year 1999, $5.582 trillion; it goes to $5.664 trillion; 2001, $5.721 trillion; 2002, $5.737 trillion; 2003, $5.760 trillion; 2004, $5.770 trillion. Up, up, and away. Deficits, not surpluses; deficits--the Congressional Budget Office says--as far as the eye can see. The Republicans were going to take the $1.9 trillion of Social Security. We have to not get into Social Security. We have to find $1 trillion for the tax cut about which we have been talking. So they said we have another $1 trillion. How do we do it? They said--at least the Republicans, and I will limit my comment to that because that is what they have in this particular amendment--they said: Let's not just have current policy. Let's stick to the spending caps that we put in. They violate the spending caps. They violated it again last year, $21 billion, and we already are up to $17 billion and it is going to be at least $35 billion or $40 billion or more at the end of this year-- already in violation of the caps. When the majority says they keep the caps on with no emergency spending and the economy stays at a growth of around 2 to 2.5 percent. The chairman of the Budget Committee on Sunday said CBO estimated two recessions--That is not right and I would like to correct that. CBO in this book does not project any recession during the next 10 years, rather 2.5-percent growth. If you can get all of that growth you can get and have unemployment staying the same way, inflation staying way down, interest rates down, you obey the caps and you have no emergencies whatever. And then you find some money. However, I point out that they knew where most of the money, 80 percent, was coming from--the other trust funds. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that page in the report, Trust Funds Looted to Balance the Budget.

Mr. HOLLINGS. So we have the other trust funds to the tune of a 10- year period of $800 billion. We have $1 trillion to spend and that is the gamesmanship. There actually is no surplus. They are increasing deficits. If you don't believe CBO, believe at least the President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed page 43 of the OMB report.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, I send a motion to the desk in accordance with the rule, by 2 o'clock, that they be filed and we intend to make later today.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the distinguished Senator from North Dakota 10 minutes off the bill. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Two additional minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. An additional 5 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Three additional minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We had a wonderful debate in the 1930s between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey. It was Mr. Lippmann's contention that the way to maintain and strengthen a democracy was get the best of minds in the various disciplines--foreign policy, economic policy, housing, whatever--get them around the table, determine the public's needs, the Nation's needs, determine a policy to answer those needs, and give it to the politicians in Congress and let them enact it. John Dewey, the educator, said no. He said give the American people the truth. Let the free press give the American people the truth, and the truth will be reflected through the Congressmen and the Senators in the Congress and we will have a strong democracy. And that is what we did for 200- and-some years. As Jefferson said, ``When the press is free and every man can read, all is safe.'' What has happened? We are not safe any longer because the press has gotten into entertainment and they have joined the conspiracy and they call spending increases spending cuts and they call deficits surpluses. That is our dilemma. That is our dilemma. The only thing that is going to save us is that free press getting back to their professional code of conduct, and cut out the entertainment, and get back to telling the American people the truth. Then we would not have to argue about tax cuts. It has to be an embarrassment to come out here with a tax cut. It would be an embarrassment to come out here and just spend billions and billions of dollars that we do not have. This year we are spending $103 billion more than we are taking in. We are in a deficit position. I thank the Chairman and I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator was correct in what I was saying. I said nothing about tax cuts--I favored those over spending. I said in my motion there is a surplus that we apply to reducing the national debt, and I quoted Mr. Greenspan as of February, when he said, ``Stay the course.'' I didn't say Greenspan said I prefer tax cuts over spending. I did not use that quote.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, you see the debt held by government accounts, end of period, $7.543 trillion, plus up there at the end of the period, the little 44, making an increase of debt to $7.587 trillion. There is the debt going up from $5.6 trillion to $7.6 trillion, an increase of $2 trillion in the debt. Everybody is talking ``surplus.'' I wonder where in the world do they get the surplus. We are beginning to see it in the double accounting in the Wall Street Journal and otherwise. Let's go to the Congressional Budget Office because my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, talked about a $2.9 trillion surplus. He is right. In the rhetoric at the very beginning, they talk about a surplus here on page 2--cumulative onbudget surpluses of projected and total, nearly $1 trillion between 1999 and 2009. During that same period, cumulative off-budget surpluses will total slightly more than $2 trillion. That is where he finds, I take it, the $2.9 trillion. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record from the Congressional Budget Office report of July 1, page 19.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will comment, too, on what the Senator from Illinois discussed about the lockbox and why we can't talk. We couldn't talk about lockbox, and we couldn't get cloture for the simple reason they would not allow my amendments. I gave them notice. I sent a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to all Senators. I said, No. 1, I will put in a true lockbox. It was worked out with the Social Security Administration. Ken Apfel, who used to work with me when I was chairman of the Budget Committee, is now the Social Security Administrator. The only way to get a true lockbox is to not double the counting and say, I saved it, but then spend it. On the contrary, actually require the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit those amounts each month, place the Treasury bills you have to issue for the debt of Social Security back into the Social Security trust fund. Somebody says: Wait; what are you going to do with that money? Do exactly what all pension reserves and insurance companies do: Keep it there--what we did for 35 years, from 1935 to 1968, until this changed in 1969. I was going to put a cap on the debt. They think it is a surplus. Say whatever the debt is as of September 30th, in 2 months' time, cap it off. Say that can't be exceeded. Put that limit there and find out who is telling the truth. They are talking surpluses. I am saying it is deficits. It is debt increases. Also, cut out the monkeyshine. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico and I had challenged the late Senator Chiles when he was chairman of the Budget Committee and he started using different economic assumptions. We lost on appeal of the ruling of the Chair, but we came around with 301(g) and wrote in the Budget Act that you couldn't have the new economic assumptions different from those in each particular budget resolution. These are the things we wanted to put in with respect to getting truth in budgeting when we passed Gramm-Rudman- Hollings back in 1985. We have gone totally astray--the White House, Republican and Democrat, the news media--until this morning. That is my point. I thank the Wall Street Journal, I thank the Washington Post for finally reporting some of the truths out here. If we can't level with the American people, no wonder they are talking about ``what kind'' of tax cut. They all want to pay down the debt. When they use the expression, ``pay down the debt'' or the ``public debt,'' it doesn't pay any debt at all. Those T bills come due during the next 10 years and are not renewed. In the meantime, while they are not being renewed, the debt is transferred over to Social Security and other trust funds, so we owe Social Security this very minute $857 billion; by the year 2009, we will owe Social Security $2.7 trillion. Then they talk not only of surpluses but saving Social Security, how we have extended the life of Social Security, when we have actually bankrupted the blooming program. Mr. President, $2.7 trillion by 2009; we get to 2013, when they really need the money, and it will be over $3 trillion. What Congress will find $3 trillion to start paying the benefits? This is serious business. I see the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have given the American people, as John Dewey said, ``the truth,'' because you look from 2000 right on through where they talk about the gross Federal debt, and the gross Federal debt starts up from the year 2000 and increases to the year 2004 from $5.664 trillion to $6.029 trillion. It is the same for 2004 and 2005. Yes. I will agree that the Congressional Budget Office shows a diminution, a reduction, in the deficit from the year 2005 to 2009 over the 4-year period. There is a saving or reduction in 2006 of $38 billion; a reduction in the year 2007 of $57 billion; a reduction in the year 2008 of $75 billion; and a reduction in the year 2009 of $100 billion. So it is a cumulative reduction of $270 billion. They talk about a $2.9 trillion surplus? At best they could talk, under the Congressional Budget Office, about $270 billion. The reason they even can find the $270 billion is the most favorable of circumstances. The most favorable of circumstances is, one, current policy, as they say on one of the pages here. It says that it assumes discretionary spending will equal the statutory caps on such spending through 2002, and will grow at the rate of inflation thereafter. That is the most favorable circumstance--no increases; just cap the spending, and adjust inflation thereafter for the first 5 years and inflation thereafter for the next 5 years. It assumes no emergency spending. We have already seen that they are calling, as the distinguished Senator from Illinois was pointing out, the census an emergency. They have veterans' benefits as an emergency and they have everything else as an emergency. It assumes also that there is no tax cut and that the interest rate stays the same. You have all of these favorable assumptions, and at best, under the Congressional Budget Office, a saving of $270 billion rather than $2.9 trillion. I have been trying my best to get a time to get on this floor. I thank everybody for the simple reason that the best of circumstances here are that, yes, inflation is low; interest rates are down; unemployment is down; employment figures are up. We have the best of circumstances, to President Clinton's credit. Yes, the deficits have been coming down. Having said that, as Alan Greenspan said earlier in the year, let's stay the course. Let's stay the course and make sure we continue this, if there is ever a time to pay down the bill--I am glad the Senator from Illinois touched on this--the interest costs. I was a member of the Grace Commission against waste, fraud, and abuse. We created during the 1980s the biggest waste in the world by voting a 25-percent across-the-board tax cut. Here we are about to repeat the crime. That is a crime against common sense. It is a crime against future generations. There isn't any question about it. But everybody is talking about a tax cut. Republicans are talking one tax cut. The Democrats are talking, the White House is talking, and everybody is talking tax cut when in reality we don't have any taxes to cut. We don't have any revenues to lose. Everybody knows that. We created the biggest waste in that year. The interest costs are practically $1 billion a day on the national debt. On the same page as we have included in the Record, page 19, you will see in the 10-year period, from 2000 through 2009, we spend on interest costs--total waste--$3.4441 trillion for nothing over the 10-year period. They are talking about fanciful surpluses out of the atmosphere that do not exist, and otherwise not talking about the tremendous waste for the crass hypocrisy of this monkeyshine of politics that we have to somehow neutralize the Republican tax cut with our tax cut. Come on. Can't we neutralize ourselves with the truth for a change? We are spending $3.4 trillion. I see my distinguished colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, looking. I must have already used up my time. I yield to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator and will limit my time so the Senator from Wyoming can take the floor. The answer is, no, the phone is not ringing off the hook. I had this in the campaign for reelection last year. I put in a value-added tax in order to retire the deficit and the debt. Of course, I was called ``High Tax Hollings.'' I said, rather than tax cuts, we ought to get rid of the national debt and the waste of interest costs of $1 billion a day. I was reelected. We have the most Republican of all States. South Carolina is the most conservative of all States. Somehow the truth is coming around to the American people, or at least to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal as of this morning. I thank them for that.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Then you see the total gross Federal debt, and you see for the 5-year projection--from the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004--it goes from a debt of $5.7036 trillion to $6.298 trillion. That shows the debt going up. And everybody is talking ``surplus.'' Then I turn over to page 43. This is the President's projection. You can see over the 15 years--not 5 years. I ask unanimous consent that page 43 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I certainly appreciate it. I really appreciate the significance of and the emphasis the distinguished Senator from Illinois and the distinguished Senator from California are exchanging on the floor about the realities of the budget. Mr. President, some years ago, there was this debate between Walter Lippmann and the famous educator, John Dewey, with relation to how to build a strong democracy. Mr. Lippmann contended the way to have and maintain a strong democracy was to get the best of minds in the various disciplines countrywide--whether in education, housing, foreign relations, financial and fiscal policy, or otherwise--and let them meet around the table and determine the needs of the Nation and the policy thereof; take care of those needs, give it to the politicians, give it to the Congress, and let them enact it. It was John Dewey's contention--no, he said, what we need is the free press to tell the American people the truth. These truths would be reflected through their Representatives on the floor of the national Congress, and the democracy would continue strong. For 200-some years now, we have had that free press reporting those truths. But, unfortunately, until this morning--until this morning, Mr. President--they have been coconspirators, so to speak, in that they have joined in calling spending increases spending cuts, and calling deficits surpluses. Eureka. I picked up the Washington Post this morning, and on the front page, the right-hand headline, they talk about the shenanigans of emergency spending and calling up the CBO with different economic assumptions--finding $10 billion. Just go to the phone if you are Chairman of the Budget Committee, call up Mr. Crippen over at CBO and say: Wait a minute. Those economic assumptions we used in the budget resolution--I have different ones. Therefore, give me $10 billion more. It is similar to calling up a rich uncle. That is now being exposed in the Wall Street Journal. Of all things, they are talking in the front middle section about national and international news headlines and talking about double accounting and how they give them credit for saving the money and spending it at the same time. There is a whole column by our friend David Rogers on page 24. So, eureka, I found it. We are now breaking through and beginning to speak the truth. I know the distinguished Chair is very much interested in actual and accurate accounting, and the actual fact is we are running a deficit, the Congressional Budget Office says, of $103 billion this year, which ends with August and September--just 2 more months after this July, and we will have spent $103 billion more than we take in; namely, on the deficit. So, Mr. President, when you hear all of this jargon and plans about surpluses and how they find them and whatever else, you go to the books and you turn to their reports and you say: Wait a minute now. The President came out in his document here, the CBO report--and I hold in my hand the midsession review, which came out 10 days ago and I said: Wait a minute. Let me find out where they find this surplus. On the contrary, on page 42, under the heading ``Total Gross Federal Debt''--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this page be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I also agree with Senator Harkin.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with my distinguished colleagues from Rhode Island and New Hampshire, and am pleased to support the program. The manager's amendment ensures that the program will not only be continued, but will receive some additional funding.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I concur with my good friend and colleague from the New Hampshire on the use of the increased funds for the Office of Advocacy. In addition, it was our intent to add 5 full-time equivalent employees in the Office of Advocacy bringing the total for FY 2000 to 54 full- time employees.