Floor Statements

Mr. President, so many Senators have spoken so eloquently about the loss of Senator Moynihan; but no one has been listened to in their speeches like they listened to our friend in the bow tie with the staccato delivery. Standing in this Chamber, he would overwhelm with his original thoughts, including overwhelming this Senator who had the good fortune to listen to his ideas for all 24 of his years here.

The saddest part about losing our friend is we lose him when we need him most.

He was the authority on Social Security, just when we need someone to stand up and expose the numbers that these voodoo tax cuts are taking out of the Social Security trust funds. He was the United Nations Ambassador who spoke bluntly, just when we need a guy with an opinion to straighten out those people up in New York. He was the architect who turned Pennsylvania Avenue into a grand boulevard, just when we need someone to figure out how to protect against terrorism and not undo the beauty he brought to this city.

Right to the point: he was from the world of intellect, not from the nonsense poll watchers. This Senator will miss the gregarious big man with the biggest of the big ideas, who nevertheless got things done in this Chamber.

My wife Peatsy joins me in extending our deepest sympathy to his wonderful wife Elizabeth and their family.

Mr. President, for the fourth time in as many years, the Gospel Choir of Benedict College in Columbia, SC, has won first place in the National Collegiate Choir Competition. This year the choir performed the ``Hallelujah Chorus'' and gospel tunes such as ``We Are At War'' in the competition held in New York City under the sponsorship of the Black Music Caucus of New York.

The singers are not only fine musicians, but they are outstanding members of the community--many of them are preparing for some form of service to the church. Although this Senator cannot always carry a tune, having the best choir in the land is a source of great pride to me and my State, and I wish to congratulate all the singers and the choir's director, Mr. Darryl Izzard.

Mr. President, Jean Hoefer Toal, Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, has just been recognized by Government Technology Magazine as one of the top 25 leaders from across the Nation who has done the most to bring technology to the public sector. I rise today to congratulate her.

We are a small State, much of it rural, and she has been the guiding force for linking the judicial courts in all 46 counties. She is making the county courts, all with their own cases and business, into a truly unified court system so that cases can be managed all across the jurisdictions. After September 11, the Nation saw the importance of a well-connected criminal justice system, and I am proud that my State is leading the way with automation. I know everyone in this body joins me in thanking Chief Justice Toal for bringing this about.

Will the distinguished Senator yield?

We had not gotten up to $726 billion. We had it paid for until you-- --

Mr. President, many children face illnesses requiring a hospital visit. This can be a frightening experience and underscores the need to provide quality pediatric health services, while easing the stress children and their families feel. To do just that, the Greenville Hospital System Children's Hospital in South Carolina is celebrating Children and Healthcare Week the week of March 24th with a number of valuable activities.

Among the scheduled events are: continuing education classes for medical residents and support staff, an awards ceremony to honor local individuals who have dedicated their lives to pediatric care, a special tribute service to honor children, and special staff appreciation activities conducted by community volunteers. Lack of quality health care should never be an impediment to the long-term success of our children, and I commend Greenville's dedication to this.

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

Mr. President, if you turn to page 6 of the budget, you will see that for the fiscal year we are projecting going into the red $484 billion; for 2004, $582 billion; for 2005, $556 billion. So for the 3-year period, that is $1.5 trillion going into the red. That is $1.5 trillion of stimulus.

If anybody wants to talk growth, you know dividends and the estate tax are not going to stimulate anything. This is $l.5 trillion of stimulus. The only thing that grows in this budget is the debt. So for those who are responding to the needs of the country, trying to get us to sober up and get back on track and get ahold of ourselves and quit running these horrendous deficits and spending Social Security, vote aye; for those responding to the needs of the campaign, vote no.

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

Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk as modified.

I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

On behalf of Senators Graham of Florida and South Carolina, Senators Byrd, Lieberman, Corzine, Schumer, Murray, Biden, and others, this amendment is to fund the port security provisions that we passed unanimously through the Senate. We had funding at that time. The House would not agree and the law is there. The responsibility and the unfunded mandate is there upon the States. Now they have no emergency dollars and it is an emergency situation.

We have to have $1 billion this year and $1 billion next year. I wanted to first take the money from the tax cuts. That was not going to work, and then I was going to remove the caps and I retreated to the 920 offset. We are in a desperate situation. We have to have the money.

Last Congress, we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. This landmark bill reflects the first time that the federal government has imposed security requirements on U.S. ports since World War II.

People do not ordinarily think about what happens at our ports. They take for granted that goods from all over the world are transported through our ports at minimal cost. However, this system is in jeopardy because security has never been part of the equation, and for the first time, we are requiring shipments to not only be efficient, but efficient and secure. The current situation leaves us in jeopardy, because Al Qaeda could use one of the millions of marine containers that are shipped into the U.S. to carry a dirty bomb, they could also take over an oil tanker and use it as a weapon to attack our coastal cities.

The bill we passed last year, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, sets the stage for protecting our nation, and for protecting our homeland. Last year, when we were considering this measure, Senate conferees insisted that we needed a commitment to fund the important requirements and mandates of this act. But until now we have not agreed on how to fund this measure. We implored the administration to come up with their own plan to help us address the vital need to secure our ports and points inland from maritime attack, but they sat on the sidelines.

Faced with that inaction, we pushed our colleagues in the House to require user fees on cargo shippers, and on ships, in order to provide funds for security equipment and programs, and to help our first responders plan how they might counteract any attacks. But our friends in the House, primarily those at the Ways and Means Committee, said that it was not a user fee. When we convinced them that it was, they then said that revenues had to originate in the House. After that we said okay, you pass the bill on the House side, and then we will pass your bill in the Senate. Yet the goal post moved further away once again, when the house said that they couldn't agree on any user

fee at all, and that the federal government should pay for port security in the budget. In the end, it was more important to pass the maritime security bill, and to impose the security mandates, so we required the Administration to submit their plans for funding port security to Congress within 6 months. Well, this years' budget proposes not one penny for port security!

As required by the MTSA, the Coast Guard has begun to survey security at U.S. ports, and preliminary estimates are that we will need 4.8 billion dollars to comply with the mandates. According to a ``Maritime Security Notice'' in the Federal Register of December 30, 2002, the total costs of implementing security in our seaports will reach $6 billion over the next ten years. The first year cost will be $1.4 billion. The costs are broken down by USCG as follows:

Vessel security: $1.1 billion over ten years,

Facility security: $4.4 billion over ten years,

Port Security Plans and Committees: $477 million over ten years.

This funding is crucial to the security of our homeland. A recent port security terrorism simulation was conducted by federal, state, and private sector experts to examine the consequences of a seaport attack. Their conclusions were stunning. The simulation indicated that within twenty days of an attack through U.S. seaports, the New York Stock Exchange would halt trading on the Exchange because of restated earnings estimates and shareholder panic. Retailers and manufacturers would be crippled by our inability to reopen U.S. ports so that their inventories could be replenished.

Last year, U.S. ports on the west coast were temporarily closed because of labor strikes, economists estimate that this closure cost our economy over two billion dollars a day. And, while we are spending billions of dollars each year to figure out how to shoot missiles out of the sky, we are spending practically nothing to protect against a weapon simply being put into a marine container, and shipped to the United States at a cost of less than three thousand dollars.

The economic impact of the closure of just the west coast ports pales in comparison to the economic devastation that would be the reaction to a dirty bomb imported in a container through the Port of Charleston or Philadelphia, or an intentional ship collision with an oil facility along the Houston ship channel, or the scuttling of a vessel blocking the Mississippi River maritime highway. Many Members are from States that would be directly impacted by a maritime terrorist event, and all will be effected by the economic fallout. As demonstrated by the port security simulation, a terrorist event will force the closure of every port in the country, potentially causing the destruction of our economic system before the ports could be cleared and reopened. Currently, we are only inspecting two percent of containers entering the U.S. We need to do better. The consequences are just to great to not provide the badly needed funds to upgrade port security.

For example, Tuesday, with the existing military situation and homeland security threat level at ``high,'' the State of South Carolina has been forced to supplement the existing security at the Port of Charleston, and at nuclear power plants, by deputizing and reassigning 400 probation and parole officers. This extra security should be available from security professionals trained in transportation security, but these professionals are not available because we are not doing what is needed to secure our ports.

A failure in securing our ports from attack, will result in a catastrophic attack on our economy, and ultimately on the strength of our nation. We currently do not have an adequate security system at our ports, and there has not been any sign from the Administration that they will secure our seaports in the future. The Coast Guard, Customs and Transportation Security Administration are doing their best, but unless they are given the tools and the funding to help our ports and cities employ the security that we need, we will be defenseless from a catastrophic attack. In order to provide this critical funding I am proposing an amendment to the Senate budget resolution.

The amendment would add $1 billion annually, for seaport security needs, over the next two years. In order to pay for the amendment, the tax cut would be reduced by $2 billion. The one billion, per year, could be spent consistent with the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as follows: Maritime Administration, $610 million; $450 million, for grants to ports and waterfront facilities to help ensure compliance with federally approved security plans; $150 million; for grants to states, local municipalities and other entities to help comply with federal area security plans and to provide grants to responders for port security contingency response; $10 million, to be used in conjunction with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to help develop a seaport security training curriculum to provide training to federal and state law enforcement personnel, and to certify private security personnel working at seaports.

Coast Guard, $160 million; $50 million, for port security assessments; $50 million, for the establishment and operation of multi- agency task force to coordinate and evaluate maritime information in order to identify and respond to security threats; $40 million, to help implement the Automated Identification System, AIS, and other tracking systems designed to actively track and monitor vessels operating in U.S. waters; $20 million, for additional Coast Guard port security vessels.

The Border and Transportation Security Directorate, $230 million, $100 million, to Customs for the installation of screening equipment, and to be used to help develop new technologies to help develop and prototype screening and detection equipment at U.S. ports; $100 million, to TSA and Customs; $50 million each, to evaluate and implement cargo security programs; $30 million, for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to develop and implement the Transportation Worker ID Card, and to conduct criminal background checks of transportation workers who work in secure areas or who work with sensitive cargo or information.

I thank the distinguished chairman for his agreement. We could voice- vote to save time.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank the leader from North Dakota. He has led our Budget Committee and done an outstanding job. The kudos belong to him for fiscal responsibility, and the responsibility in the position he has as the ranking member, to try to get the group together on a consensus, which is next to impossible, but he does the job.

I have three amendments at the desk, and I understand we are not introducing amendments, so I will address hastily comments on all three.

The first, of course, is the port security amendment for $1 billion a year for 2 years. It is focused, not Pepto-Bismol homeland security of $80 billion over 10-some years. I have talked to Senators on both sides of the aisle. They want to finance what we passed unanimously--all 100 Senators--earlier last year for port security.

Right to the point, Osama owns several vessels. His teams landed and blew up the Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. His crews were on planes flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He could just as easily have two or three crews get on an Exxon tanker going up the Delaware River to deliver a tankerful of oil, throw the captain overboard and that tanker aground, and that would close down the eastern seaboard for at least 1 year.

I could go into it, but the amendment is worked out and in detail. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the details of the amendment.

I thank the distinguish Chair.

The second concerns paying for the war. At the very beginning of this session, the first week of January, I introduced a bill to pay for the war in Iraq. I read a book about the fiscal dilemmas we faced each time there was a war, and I say to my distinguished colleague from Wyoming, each time our leaders paid for the war. During the Civil War they put a tax on dividends. The party of Lincoln did that. In World War I, they went up to a 77 percent marginal tax rate to pay for that war; in World War II, a 94 percent rate; in the Korean war, 91 percent. In Vietnam-- that is when President Johnson, who has been abused in history but he is the one who wanted to pay for guns and butter--he balanced the budget, paying for both guns and butter, in 1968 to 1969. That was the last time in the history of this Congress we balanced the budget. We paid for the war in Vietnam.

Now, of course, we come to the war on Iraq. Unlike the Civil War where we had put taxes on dividends, here, there is no tomorrow; like drunken sailors, we come up to this chamber and say we are not going to pay for the war.

My particular measure on the desk is a reserve fund of $100 billion. Larry Lindsey, the President's former chief economic advisor, said the war will cost between $100 and $200 billion, but that is up to the Finance Committee to figure out. You have to put your money where your mouth is. I think a better way to pay is with new money. We cannot just forgo this program or that program. We need a value-added tax of 2

percent dedicated to paying just for that war in Iraq. It would take the IRS a solid year until they fashioned the tax and we could start collecting it. But it is a very enforceable tax. Every industrialized country has had one. We had hearings before the Finance Committee back in the 1980s about a value-added tax. We almost adopted it then.

We ought to get serious and get off the deficit bandwagon we are on now. That is what disturbs me. The Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, says in time of war we run deficits. Then, just the other day, in a speech to the nation, he said that ``Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.''

The point is, we must have sacrifice; yet that is not being followed through, by any manner or means, with respect to paying for the war. Now is the time for this body to sober up and realize we are running horrendous deficits.

What we have right now is the certainty of sacrifice, for everyone except the Commander in Chief and us in Congress. What we are saying to that GI going into Iraq tonight is: We hope you don't get hurt. We hope you don't get killed because we want you to hurry back. Why? Because we are going to give you the bill. We are not going to pay for the war. The fellow who fights the war is going to have to pay for the war because we need a tax cut. We are going to Disney World. We are not going to have any sacrifice.

They are all running around here with flags on their lapels. So I put section 6 into my bill when I introduced it, which says that if members vote against it, they will be prohibited from wearing the flags in their lapels.

Now when the President leads you to deficits by saying, in time of war we can run deficits, we are playing a game. He says that so in the election next year, you can say, ``I voted for tax cuts.'' That is our dilemma.

The other side talks about the need for tax cuts so we can see economic growth and growth and growth; but my third amendment is to stop the tax cuts.

You can see in this budget before the Senate, the only growth we have is in the national debt. It goes from $6.687 trillion in fiscal year 2003, to $11.919 trillion in fiscal year 2013. It goes up, up, and away by $5.2 trillion. I was here when we did not even have a $1 trillion deficit. President Reagan started this tax cut nonsense with voodoo I, and we immediately had a recession. Dave Stockman wrote in his book ``The Triumph of Politics,'' we should have canceled the tax cut in November 1981, and we did not. He said the President did not do what he should have done.

Then we had voodoo II, the year before last, with President Bush's tax cut. On June 1, 2001, we had surpluses. Then we passed the tax cut, voodoo II, on June 8, and by July 1 we had a deficit. By September 10, 2001--one day before September 11 we had a deficit. We were in the red by $99 billion, so don't blame the deficits on September 11.

We were already in deficits, and voodoo II caused it. Now we seem to get no education in the third kick of a mule, so to speak. We are on course just for the pollsters and buying the election next year with more tax cuts. That is why I resist what some members are trying to do by cutting the tax cut down to $350 billion.

Do you know what that means to this particular Senator? I was with Phil Gramm and Warren Rudman on Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and our particular initiative called for the reduction of the deficit each year by $35 billion. Here they want me to vote to increase the deficit each year by $35 billion for 10 years, or $350 billion.

What will happen is we will pass it in the Senate, it will get over to the conference, they will fix it, it will be back up to $700 billion-and-something. You will have the votes. You have the majority.

I ask unanimous consent to have ``budget realities'' printed in the Record.

If you take the years from 1945, from President Truman down through President Ford, 30 years, to 1975, you will find the aggregate total of all deficits at $358 billion. That is for 30 years, six Presidents, the cost of World War II, the cost of Korea, the cost of Vietnam. All throughout that and all the deficits, it was only $358 billion. Last year the deficit was, in 1 year, $428 billion. Here in my hand is the President's budget. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the last page in here, page 332.

On page 332, the President projects we will have a deficit next year of $569 billion. He says this year we will end up with a $554 billion deficit. That $554 billion doesn't include the $100 billion for Iraq. So you can see we are up around $600 or $700 billion.

I used to say Strom Thurmond and I are home free. But I think my newest distinguished colleague from South Carolina will have to pay for it. I will not have to pay for it. I am not worried about it, and everything else like that. We can retire, get our pension, go on home and be quiet. But you cannot do it in good conscience when you come to Government to do the job of the people, and they trust you, they want you to look out for the needs of the country, not the needs of the campaign. That is what we are all engaged in here.

People are giving up their lives for us, for what we believe in, for what we legislate, and for the command we give them to go to war. We ought at least to pay for the war on the one hand. And we ought to ensure the peace economically for our children and grandchildren, not by tax cuts, but somehow, somewhere, to pay for these budgets.

I would like to get Government on a pay-as-you-go basis. I remember when Alan Greenspan went down with a team to President Clinton and he said you are going to have to raise taxes. In 1993 we raised taxes. We cut the spending and we raised taxes on Social Security, we raised taxes on gasoline, we raised taxes on the highest bracket. And we had 8 years of the finest and strongest economy.

Now we come here and want to sell the idea of tax cuts are going to give growth. We know that with $428 billion and $554 billion in deficits, that's really almost a trillion dollars in stimulus, and that is without the cost of the war. What gives here?

We have to sober up and get off this deficit barleycorn we are drinking like drunken sailors around here, like there is no tomorrow, like we don't have to pay for the war. There is no sacrifice for us.

We go to the schoolchildren in America and we say there is one thing certain about war, it is sacrifice. But then we come up with the pollsters and say we have to get reelected so we want to go ahead next year to say we cut taxes.

So there we are. I am not for that $350 billion compromise or whatever it is. I admire the people who are trying to work out the compromise, but that is totally misleading to the American people, that somehow the burden is too great on estate taxes. We have had people come here, George Soros, Bill Gates, and the others come who are paying the estate taxes. They come and say don't worry about it. That is not really too big a burden.

With respect to dividends, in the market in New York there is a dichotomy, a difference up there with respect to whether or not we ought to lift the taxes on dividends. But if they would talk about seniors, they would say senior are double taxed on their Social Security. I pay the tax on Social Security and when I receive the benefit, I pay the tax on that Social Security benefit. That is double taxation. Eighty percent of seniors in America depend for the major part of their income on Social Security. So if it's seniors we have in mind we want to look out for, then look out for, not the rich seniors, but the poor seniors, 80 percent of the seniors, because they are not in that top bracket that is worried about estate taxes and everything else of that kind.

I really appreciate the distinguished Senator from North Dakota yielding me this time. I wanted to be able, in a deliberate fashion talk about these amendments, because when we get to that 1 minute a side rule I will not be able to.

I have a very judicious amendment on port security, where we would just fund it for 2 years. We voted 100 to nothing, all Republicans and all Democrats, with respect to port security.

I think we ought to pay for the war. We are not raising the taxes here and we are not telling them how to do it in the Finance Committee. The Budget Committee can't do that. But we can do the amount. And I think we ought not to have any more tax cuts.

I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, with my gratitude. I appreciate it very much.

My friend.

If the distinguished Senator will yield, I really am grateful to him. The truth is, more than a balanced budget, we need balanced Senators. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is just that. He has that even temper in how he approached it, and therefore has been far more effective because I have been wailing and crying without effect for years. But I will continue on, trying my best, thank you very much.

Is it controlled time?

Ten minutes.

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.

We can see from the table:

Assets of the trust funds provide a reserve to pay benefits whenever expenditures exceed income. Assets increased by $165.4 billion in 2002 because income to each fund exceeded expenditures--as shown in the table II.B1.

Unlike what Senator Nickles says at the end of 2002, the combined assets of the OASI and the DI Trust Funds were 288 percent of estimated expenditures for 2003.

This resolution of Senator Graham of South Carolina is just cover for the looting of the Social Security trust fund. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, all that is needed to secure the Social Security trust fund is quit spending it on any and every other thing other than Social Security.

Is my time up?

Yes, I would like additional time, if I can have additional time.

The reason I would like additional time is to amend this resolution, and insert section 13301. That is the budget law.

How can we bring into sharp focus that is the law? I have tried by putting different penalties in, but I cannot get the Senate to pass them. We have to quit worrying about the year 2042 and start worrying about today and getting by. Our soldiers in the front lines are ready to go into Iraq, and they are worried about being around this time tomorrow, not 2042.

It is a shame for the Senate to engage in this charade at this hour. We are looting the Social Security trust fund. We are running, this fiscal year, according to the President, $554 billion in the red. That is without the costs of the war, without a supplemental. We ran a deficit last year of $428 billion. That right there is $1 trillion of stimulus into this economy.

They should be ashamed to come here asking for tax reform under the cover of stimulus. No one believes the relief of taxes on dividends will stimulate the economy or the estate tax will stimulate the economy. Those with estates and those with dividends, Bill Gates and several other witnesses, have said that is the wrong course to take. They know it. I know it. You know it.

I had to speak on the initial amendment of my distinguished colleague from South Carolina for whom I have the greatest respect, but we are not going to be able to join in these charades. We have to start paying the bills, including paying for the war, and not engage in tax cuts.

Yesterday, I sent a Dear Colleague letter to everyone in this body about paying for the war. It is very simple. Here we are saying: GI, we want you to go into Iraq and we hope you do not get killed. Then we want you to come back. The reason we want you to come back is because my generation, this Congress, isn't going to pay for it. You are going to have to pay for it. You are not only going to have to fight the war but pay for it.

What do we need in this Congress right now--a tax cut so we can go to Disney World? That is the charade going on here, a few hours before we commit our troops to freedom in Iraq. We ought to sober up.

I am informed by the staff that we have to wait until the end of the consideration to put up the amendment.

Everyone is on notice, I would like to strike all of the ``whereases'' because that is poppycock. We do not all have to be worried about 2042, today, as we go into Iraq. We ought to cut out the playing of games and get serious around here that we are running the economy into the ground.

I yield back the remainder of my time and I ask that I be able to call the amendment at the proper time.

Yes.

Mr. President, right to the point, when the distinguished Senator from Idaho was talking about growing out to it, I ask unanimous consent to print page 6 of the budget resolution before us in the Record at this particular point.

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.

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?

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.

Do you object?

That would be acceptable.

Amendment No. 274, As Modified

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

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

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.''

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.''

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.''