Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank our colleague from North Dakota because his words are music to my ears. He is a student of competition. He knows there is no such thing as free trade. It is only competitive trade. Every nation necessarily tries to build up its manufacturing, its production, its economic strength not only in finished products, but in agriculture.

The significance of the words of our distinguished colleague, Senator Dorgan, is that he is an agricultural Senator. For years, I have been trying, with the textile industry in my home State, to get some awareness of the fair competition in our textile industry, which is the most productive in the entire world. But since NAFTA, we have lost 58,100 jobs. As we have passed textile bills through the Senate over the past almost 37 years that I have been here, it has been the airline/aircraft industry that has been so strong. Well, Boeing is finally joining me. They have 7\1/2\-percent unemployment up in Seattle, WA, and Boeing is manufacturing in China. And our $435 billion trade deficit also includes a deficit in agriculture. No one has been a better protector of the interests of agriculture than the distinguished Presiding Officer.

It is only the second time in our history that we have a deficit in the balance of trade in farm products. That is not news to this Senator from South Carolina. I remembered when we finally, just in the last few years, got a deficit in the balance of trade in cotton with China. So I understand it is going to all agricultural products.

We have the facts and figures. I am ready to join in the debate for us to start treating foreign trade as foreign aid. It was good that the Marshall plan worked, but now we have to rebuild our economy, and that is a very important problem.

But there is one more important thing, and that is this war in Iraq. What we are saying--and I talk advisedly--to that GI is this: Look, we want you to go into Iraq and we hope you come back home safely. The reason we want him or her to come back safely is not for their welfare, but for our welfare. We want them to come back because we are going to give them the bill. My generation is not going to pay for it. The fellow fighting the war is going to have to pay for the war.

For the first time in the history of wars in the United States of America, we said the Army is going to war, but the country is not. The President is not going. The Congress is not going. Oh, we are going to wear that flag on our lapels. Yes, we are patriotic and we will give you patriotic talk anytime you want it.

But as far as actual support, let's find out what the record shows because I had to listen to Bob Novak, the distinguished columnist on TV, the other night when he said: How are we going to pay for it? Just like we did in Vietnam. We borrowed the money.

No, sir, we paid for Vietnam. I was in the room with George Mahone, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We called over to Marvin Watson and said: Ask the President if we can cut another $5 billion. He said cut it. Why? Because the President of the United States was very sensitive about guns and butter. He wanted to pay for both, and President Lyndon Baines Johnson paid for both. That is the last time we had a balanced budget in the history of this particular Senator being up here--back in 1968. Yes, we paid for guns and butter in Vietnam under President Johnson.

Let's go back to the Civil War.

I was amazed that President Abraham Lincoln instituted not only the income tax to pay for the Civil War, he instituted a tax on dividends. They have the unmitigated gall to say what we need now is a cut of all taxes on dividends when they were giving Trent Lott the bum's rush. The party of Lincoln, the party of Lincoln; that is all I heard on my TV at home. Where is Abraham Lincoln when we need him? He taxed dividends and instituted the income tax in 1861. They had to repeal it--they said it was unconstitutional--by 1870, but they paid for that war. They sacrificed.

When you have a mutual sacrifice, then we are all committed. I believe the country is going to war in Iraq, not just the army. I want to pay for it. I put in a 1-percent value-added tax to pay for that war, and I can't get a hearing before the Finance Committee.

I had a hearing before the Finance Committee when Lloyd Bentsen was the chairman. I brought in Dr. Cnossen, the expert who not only instituted that plan in Japan, the United Kingdom, and Canada, but knew all the ins and outs. He was my expert. He testified. As we were leaving the Dirksen Building that day, former Senator John Chafee turned to Chairman Bentsen and said: If we had a secret ballot, we would vote that matter out of the Finance Committee unanimously because we were beginning to run into these astronomical deficits as a result of voodoo 1 under President Ronald Reagan.

In World War I, we raised taxes to pay for the war. During World War

Mr. President, section 21 said to put Social Security off budget in trust, not to be expended on anything other than Social Security. We spend Social Security trust funds on any and everything but Social Security. Has Mr. Greenspan thought of that solution: Just do not spend the Social Security taxes on every endeavor that we could possibly imagine but Social Security?

I had a dickens of a time trying to get that written into law. It took me 7 years, and finally on November 5, 1990, George Walker Herbert Bush signed into law section 13301 of the Budget Act. It is the law of the land: You shall not report from the Congress or the President a budget including Social Security. But we do, and Alan Greenspan started that nonsense back in the eighties because he wanted to cover taking those moneys to go along with what Vice President Bush at that particular time called voodoo.

Let me get up to voodoo 2 because we ought to understand, when this recession in the economy started. I am not an economist, but I am a politician. I have been chairman of the Budget Committee. I have worked with Alan Greenspan. I went over in 1980, right after the elections, to brief President-elect Reagan on the budget. We walked in the snow over to the Blair House. I will never forget it. President Reagan said he was going to balance the budget in 1 year, and after the briefing he said: Oops, I never realized how bad it was. It is going to take me 3 years. That is when we went from 1-year budgets to 3 years, and then under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings we went to 5 years, and later under Vice President Bush we went to 10 years. I suggest for this irresponsible Congress, let's go to 20. You can project anything and just keep on spending because that is exactly what we are doing.

But let's jump back to September of the year 2000 when Governor Bush, now President Bush, was running. He said he was going to cut taxes. I knew how we had just gotten the best 8 years of economic growth in the history of the United States: with an increase in taxes. We were on the tail end of our recovery. We still had a deficit. We were trying to work toward a balanced budget, and I will give my colleagues the facts and figures.

The point is, when he talked about cutting taxes, I thought, oh, heavens, we can't start that again; we are just getting back into the black. We had not gotten into the black in September 2000 nor in November, the Friday after the Tuesday election, when Vice President nominee Cheney, our good friend, said: Yes, that is exactly what we are going to do--cut taxes. When Vice President Cheney made that statement, go back and look at the market in October, November, December, and into January.

The Republicans are trying to say the recession started in March 2000. No, it started in the fall of 2000 because of this tax cut idea and running up these enormous deficits and running up the interest costs and the borrowing.

So what happened was, on January 25, Alan Greenspan appeared before the Budget Committee. What did the gentleman say? We were paying off too much debt. When he said we were paying off too much debt, that was right, title, and interest to this young new President, George W. Bush, coming into office for him to spend up to the ceiling. On February 27, I'll be darned if he didn't do just that. The new President came before the Senate in a joint session on February 27 and said: Here is my budget. I have $2.6 trillion to protect Social Security. I have $2 trillion for domestic and defense programs, and that leaves another $1 trillion for unforeseen circumstances.

We had an unforeseen circumstances on September 11, later that year, but let's go down now and find out when this recession started and when we were really in the black and in the red. I have here the public debt to the penny as reported by the Secretary of the Treasury. The latest we have--February 27, 2003--is $218 billion. That is this fiscal year-- including September, October, November, December, January, and February, we got this country another $218 billion in debt.

I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on January 25, 2001, when Chairman Greenspan spoke, we were $65 billion in the red according to the Secretary of the Treasury. On February 27, 2001, when the distinguished new President gave his speech before the Senate--we were $53 billion in the red.

On April 15, 2001, taxpaying day, we were $94 billion in the red. We had collected all that income tax on April 15 and on April 30, 2001, according to the Secretary of the Treasury, we had a surplus. And remember, they had been babbling all during the Christmas holidays and January and February of $5.6 trillion in surplus money, that we are paying off too much debt. There was all kinds of surplus talk.

Let's go to May 1, 2001. We were $23 billion in the black. On June 1, we were $4 billion in the black. But on June 7, the President signed the $1.5 trillion tax cut, voodoo 2--we had voodoo 1, so he gave us voodoo 2. And what happened? What happened after June 7? By June 28, we were $52 billion in the red, and on September 10, one day before the tragic September 11, we were $99 billion in the red. We only had 20 more days of that fiscal year. If you go into their lingo, their little song and dance routine, they are trying to say they inherited a recession--they did not cause it, but they inherited a recession. They tell you we had corporate corruption, and we had 9/11, and on and on, and everybody is beginning to believe it. They have said it again and again.

The truth is, as I've illustrated with these numbers, George Bush caused this economic downturn, and it is going to stay in a downturn with his newest tax cutting scheme, voodoo 3. Whoever heard of cutting taxes on the dividends, the marriage penalty, and all of these other things they have been coming up with and saying it is going to stimulate the economy? They know there is enough stimulus. They are under subterfuge, hiding, camouflaging tax reform under the auspices of a stimulus. The truth is, on September 30 last year, we ended up $428 billion in the red. President Bush, by his own budget, without the costs in Iraq, has already projected a $554 billion deficit this year, and his budget proposal for next year is $569 billion in the red. That is $1.5 trillion that we have not paid for, that we are infusing as a stimulus to the economy. We know we have to get ourselves on track as quickly as we possibly can.

I ask unanimous consent that section 13301 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to present Rev. Joseph A. De Laine the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor for his heroic sacrifices to desegregate our public schools. His crusade to break down barriers in education forever scarred his own life, but led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954.

Eight years before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, Reverend De Laine, a minister and principal, organized African-American parents to petition the Summerton, SC, school board for a bus and gasoline so their children would not have to walk 10 miles to attend a segregated school. A year later, in Briggs v. Elliot, the parents sued to end segregation. It was a case that as a young lawyer I watched Thurgood Marshall argue before the Supreme Court as one of the five cases collectively known as Brown v. Board of Education. For this Senator, their arguments helped to shape my view on racial matters.

For his efforts, Reverend De Laine was subjected to a reign of domestic terrorism. He lost his job. He watched his church and home burn. He was charged with assault and battery with intent to kill after shots were fired at his home and he fired back to mark the car. He had to leave South Carolina forever; relocate to New York, where he started an AME Church, and he eventually retired in North Carolina. Not until the year 2000, 26 years after his death and 45 years after the incident in his home was Reverend De Laine cleared of all charges.

Last year, I spoke to the 100 descendants of Briggs v. Elliott, and I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record, which show the bravery of Reverend De Laine during a troubled time in our Nation's past, and which point to the immeasurable benefits he has given our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to present Rev. Joseph A. De Laine the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor for his heroic sacrifices to desegregate our public schools. His crusade to break down barriers in education forever scarred his own life, but led to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case in 1954.

Eight years before Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus, Reverend De Laine, a minister and principal, organized African-American parents to petition the Summerton, SC, school board for a bus and gasoline so their children would not have to walk 10 miles to attend a segregated school. A year later, in Briggs v. Elliot, the parents sued to end segregation. It was a case that as a young lawyer I watched Thurgood Marshall argue before the Supreme Court as one of the five cases collectively known as Brown v. Board of Education. For this Senator, their arguments helped to shape my view on racial matters.

For his efforts, Reverend De Laine was subjected to a reign of domestic terrorism. He lost his job. He watched his church and home burn. He was charged with assault and battery with intent to kill after shots were fired at his home and he fired back to mark the car. He had to leave South Carolina forever; relocate to New York, where he started an AME Church, and he eventually retired in North Carolina. Not until the year 2000, 26 years after his death and 45 years after the incident in his home was Reverend De Laine cleared of all charges.

Last year, I spoke to the 100 descendants of Briggs v. Elliott, and I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record, which show the bravery of Reverend De Laine during a troubled time in our Nation's past, and which point to the immeasurable benefits he has given our Nation.

Yes, that is correct.

Madam President, I would like to express my concerns about a provision that has been buried in the fiscal year 2003 spending package. The language would make contract air traffic control (ATC) tower construction costs eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding.

On the face of it, this provision looks acceptable. The concept of making contract ATC towers eligible for Federal assistance under AIP has wide support in Congress. Many small and rural airports lack an ATC tower and do not share the safety benefits of having an air traffic controller to assist aircraft on takeoff and landing. Pilots at these airports are on their own, responsible for seeing and avoiding traffic. A number of smaller airports would like to use AIP funding to build a tower but are barred under current law. If these airports can make critical safety upgrades with this funding, they should have that option.

The problem with the provision included in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus bill is that while it would properly allow small airports to use AIP money to build new or replacement FAA contract towers, it would also allow airports that built contract ATC towers after October 1, 1996, to be eligible for reimbursement of their construction costs. The Federal Government already pays to operate these towers, and as a condition of this assistance, these airports agreed that the government would not pay the cost of constructing them.

This reimbursement would affect at least 21 contract towers that were previously built and provide up to $25 million in total for these airports from current AIP funding. In this era of having our Federal resources limited by reduced revenues and the expense of ensuring the security of our homeland, it is irresponsible for this Congress to provide funds from the AIP program to reimburse these airports for costs that have already been accounted for.

The AIP program is vital to the safety, security and capacity needs of our Nation's airways. I am hopeful that we will carefully consider the potential ramifications of this issue as we proceed later this year with the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Madam President, tomorrow the smallest of our Cabinet

agencies, the Department of Commerce, will celebrate the biggest of big anniversaries, and as the ranking member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, I rise to salute them on 100 years.

We have a whole list of their accomplishments, starting with the development of the Gross Domestic Product in the 1930s, the measure that gave us for the first time a true picture of our economy. Commerce houses the Census, the top statistical agency in the world. It is home to the Patent Office, which has witnessed an incredible amount of American history, issuing more than 6 million patents, be it to Orville and Wilbur Wright for a flying machine, or for the development of television, transistors, and computers.

In the last century, Commerce created the first atomic clock, fostered the development of public television; assisted more than half a million minority-owned businesses; and helped thousands of economically-distressed communities generate commercial development in every Senators' States. Having a hand in creating NOAA, I will always remember the last 100 years for the great advancements made in weather predicting and the saving of the gray whale and dolphin.

When Teddy Roosevelt wrote to this body a century ago, he asked us to create the Department for the ``purpose of broadening our markets . . . and making firm our new position in the international industrial world'' William Redfield, the first Secretary of Commerce, set a clear goal: ``We are going out into the markets of the world to get our share.''

This Senator knows that times change and situations change, but that for our long-term economic well being no words hold truer. We need our share to bring back jobs into this country. I wish the good people at Commerce a happy birthday. Most of all, I hope President Bush and Secretary Evans set their mark on the Department's next 100 years with trade policies that can truly build our economic potential in global markets.

Mr. President, last evening, the distinguished President said we were not going to pass on our problems to the next generation. There has to be a time of sobriety. We have to get off of this deficit binge and get to reality. The best way I know to really bring it to the attention of my colleagues is to go right back to President Bush coming into office. Everyone agrees and says, oh, the Clinton era started the recession, and so it did. But in February of 2001, right after the President had taken office, at the end of that month he acted like instead of a recession it was an economic boom. He talked of $5.6 trillion in surplus, and he outlined a budget of some $2.6 trillion for Social Security. He was going to protect Social Security. He had another $2 trillion for tax cuts, domestic and defense spending, and in the year before last, he went on to say we should prepare for the unexpected. His budget set aside $1 trillion over 10 years for additional needs. That is one trillion additional reasons everyone can feel comfortable supporting the budget.

I ask unanimous consent that a pertinent portion of the President's address be printed in the Record.

On September 6, 2001--I will never forget it--Mitch Daniels, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said we were going to have a surplus at that time because we had passed the tax cut and we had actually passed the stimulus.

This is the Senator who forced the vote to have the stimulus in March of that year, because we were thinking of a $100 billion stimulus, 1 percent of the GDP. What happened instead? They cut it back. They did not give it to the wage earners, to the payroll taxpayers, but they gave it to all the rich and they cut it back some 40-some-billion dollars and it did not work. It was passed in June, along with the tax cut.

By September 6, just before September 11, Mitch Daniels came in and he projected at that particular time a surplus of $158 billion. Three weeks later we ended up with a deficit of $143 billion, a swing of some $300 billion.

They go into the litany now of the recession, which they never wanted to recognize except in debate, and corruption and, of course, the war. They never want to pay for the war. The President says when we have war, we are going to run deficits.

Getting right to the point, I asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the cost of September 11th at

that particular fiscal year 2001 and they said $34 billion, not the $300 billion swing from a $158 billion surplus to a $143 billion deficit.

The President had set up his contingency of $1 trillion and talked about his tax cuts in the same breath. So we had voodoo II. I will never forget under President Reagan, Vice President Bush, the President's father, had called that voodoo.

I went to a budget meeting last evening with the new Budget Committee, and I heard our distinguished chairman, the Senator from Oklahoma, mention growth, growth. So they got into the buzz word ``growth.'' Let me say what it grows. It grows deficits. It grows debt. In 200 years of history, the cost of all the wars from the Revolution right on up to World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, we never reached a trillion dollar debt. With only the cost of the gulf war, with the Saudis paying for most of it, we hardly paid the cost of the war. Yet with this growth that we are going to hear about, we are talking about $6.3 trillion in deficits. We grew into horrendous debt and horrendous interest costs as a result of voodoo, and now we have voodoo II.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this chart printed in the Record.

Early last year, the President said the deficit was going to be small and short-lived. Those were his exact words. I ask unanimous consent to have those remarks printed in the Record.

We have been going up, up and away. These are small and short-lived. They can understand the chart better upside down, but here is the actual fact. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this particular chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we have run down all of these so-called deficits and interest costs from President Truman on through President Bush. You can find that the deficits now of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, for 6 presidents and almost--in almost 30 years, the cost of World War II, the cost of Korea, and the cost of Vietnam, cumulative, add them all up, those deficits are $358 billion. Guess what we added up--we ended up with this past September? The end of the fiscal year, September 30, little less than 4 months ago, we ended up with a deficit of $426 billion. They had estimated at that particular time it was going to be $173 billion. That was a swing of some $283 billion.

So when they say they are not going to pass on the costs, and let's not get bogged down in all of these figures around here, we are telling the American GI we are going to war and we hope you do not get killed. But if you are lucky enough not to get killed, come on home because we are going to give you the bill for the war. Have my colleagues ever heard of such a thing?

I want to remind everybody of last year, we tried our best to be fiscally responsible, and I commend our leader for withholding the budget. They said we could not pass one. Why didn't we pass one? Because we passed out the budget resolution, but if we had called up that budget, they would have put on tax cuts. The distinguished Chair knows it because he was a member of the Budget Committee over on the House side--we would have put on reconciliation and they, with the majority vote, could have passed those tax cuts. That is what we were holding up for. We did not want tax cuts on last year and that is why we held up the budget. Listen to what the former Director of the budget, Mr. David Stockman, said when he saw the disaster, the so- called growth, how are we going to grow out of it; all you do is just cut all your revenues.

Call up one of the Governors now with deficits--and they are trying to make it up--and say: Cut the taxes. They would be run out of the State capital. I cannot understand it. I cannot run at home unless I promise to pay the bill; I cannot run for the Senate unless I promise not to pay the bill. It is the darndest nonsense I have ever engaged in. We were trying to cancel the tax cuts. But what did David Stockman say about the Reagan tax cuts?

On page 342 in ``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 to be not 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.

Voodoo 1, long, long time. We had to get President Clinton in to raise taxes, get the best 8 years of an economy, and now we are going to have not only Voodoo 2 in 2001, but now for 2003 we are going to pass, for next year, another tax cut. It is a foregone conclusion, now that the Republicans have a majority of the Senate as well as a majority of the House.

I commend everyone to read ``The Triumph of Politics'' and see what the Director of the Budget thought about that particular tax cut.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article in this morning's Washington Post: 2004 Budget Likely to Show Record Deficits; OMB Chief Projects Annual Shortfalls of More Than $300 Billion for 2003-2004.

What we are headed for is deficits of $500 billion--if you have got just $426 billion and you are already $167 billion. Let me include the debt to the penny. I want everyone to understand. Do not give me all of this off budget, on budget, unified budget. Just find out how much you spend and how much you pay, and we can find out the shortfall or the deficit.

We are already in a shortfall this year, a little less than 4 months, the public debt to the penny as of the 27th, the most recent. I looked for one this morning, $167 billion. I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

There you are. We are in a heck of a fix and somewhat similar, if you please, to the situation we had with President Clinton.

I will never forget because I was active member and a former chairman of the Budget Committee. We had a $403.6 billion deficit in 1992. That is the big reason our distinguished President lost reelection and lost to that little Governor down there in Arkansas. The President was running $403.6 billion deficits. And they said: Yes, you did wonderfully well in the gulf war. But heavens above, you have to get someone to get ahold of it.

We brought the Governor up who balanced budgets. And what did the Governor do? Right after his nomination, in Little Rock, he invited a group of the best financial minds down to Little Rock, sat them all down, including Alan Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, and said: I have won now, but what is for the good of the country, what are we going to do?

Greenspan told him: Mr. President, you not only are going to have to cut spending, you are going to have to increase taxes.

President Clinton went around the room and asked: Do you all agree with that, we have to increase taxes? They said, to a man: That is what we need to do. We need to cut down these deficits, cut down this debt, and keep up the long-term interest rates because we are not investing in the stock market with these horrendous interest costs, almost $1 billion a day--and it is still almost $1 billion a day.

The first thing the Government does at 8 o'clock in the morning is go down to the bank and borrow $1 billion and add it to the debt--every Saturday morning, every Sunday morning, and every Christmas morning. We have got the debt going up, up, and away. But the President says: Don't worry about debt. It is a time of war.

I cannot agree with him on that. What happens, in time of war, is we believe in sacrifice, not just for those who are facing battle. I went back to the Civil War. I remember they chastised my friend Senator Lott, and they all hail the party of Lincoln. I have heard that now, that chat on the weekend shows--the party of Lincoln. Where is Abraham when we need him now? President Lincoln taxed dividends to pay for the war. Go back and look at the record. He taxed dividends.

President Bush, instead of inviting Alan Greenspan, invited Charles Schwab. He said: Eliminate the tax on dividends. And we call it a stimulus. Come on, who is kidding whom around here? When are we going to sober up and understand the American people? If you are in the war, we want to sacrifice and we want to at least pay for the war.

In World War I, we went up to 77 percent of personal income tax for the highest tax bracket; World War II, up to 94 percent; the Korean war, 91 percent; Vietnam, 77 percent. We are at 38.6 percent right now.

Instead, in the Afghan, Iraq, and terrorism wars we say: Let's cut taxes. We are not going to pay for it.

When we are running a $6.3 trillion debt and, according to the morning paper--you can interpret what Mitch Daniels says--we will be running a $500 billion deficit this year, who wants to bet? Tell them Hollings is here. September 30 will come around, and we will add it up, and I will bet your boots if we get all these things for homeland security, for AIDS, for health care, prescription drugs, and everything else of that kind, and put in this tax cut, we will have a $500 billion deficit. And they say: Don't worry about it.

Worse, they try to sell the dividend tax cut. It is wrong. You tax the income of the corporation, and you tax the individual when he gets his dividends.

I remember my distinguished friend from Texas, Phil Gramm. He stood over there when we were increasing taxes under President Clinton in 1993 and could not get a single Republican vote. And Senator Gramm looked at me and said: You are increasing taxes on Social Security; they will be hunting you Democrats down like dogs in the street.

You ought to look at the record. Now we pay taxes in order to get the Social Security trust fund, and then when I receive the Social Security benefit, I pay taxes--double tax on Social Security. Nobody mentions the Social Security tax. They all mention dividends and all the other things for the rich. And they are trying to say the economy is recovering when the economy is declining. You can't go along with this kind of tax cut here. We tried our best to stop it, and we will do our best here when we show that you have taxed like this before.

I have introduced a value-added tax of 1 percent. I would like to have 2 percent, but I didn't want to argue about the amount. I want to start a value-added tax to pay for the war. It takes the IRS one year to really administer and set it into collection. During that year's time, it could have no effect whatsoever on the economy. They say by the next year we will have recovered. That is what they are telling us. So they can't give me that argument that the value added tax will weaken economy this year if it is passed.

But I have a 1-percent VAT for the payment for the war--not for increased spending, not for tax cuts or anything else, but a tax to pay for the war.

They say their economic initiative is going to be stimulative. Let me get right to the point. You are not going to stimulate anything with the Democratic or the Republican initiative. President Bush wants a $674 billion tax cut, plus the interest costs of $300 billion, plus extending and making permanent the tax cut they passed in 2001. All of this adds up to $4 trillion. I am looking at it the way my market friends look at it. They say: Heavens above, this fellow is going to take $5 trillion out of the economy in the next several years; I am not going to invest. And we are going to war, and we are not paying for the war. We are looking at $500 billion deficits, or more.

I don't know any better way to stultify this economy and make sure it doesn't recover. I never heard of such things. This is the worst I have ever seen.

Why do I say it is not going to be a stimulus? If you just run $426 billion, that is $35 billion a month. That is the deficit for just last year. And then October, November, December, January--you are already up to $167 billion in deficits. That is $40 billion a month. We are spending $40 billion a month, and the President's stimulus plan of $110 billion is, let's say, $10 billion a month. The Democrats', Senator Daschle's stimulus plan, is $143 billion, or $12 billion a month. I don't think $10 billion or $12 billion a month more is going to stimulate this economy. You know that, and I know that. But it is buying the vote and making the mistakes--the Democrats are--even calling either one a stimulus.

There is not going to be any stimulus. It is just throwing away fiscal responsibility, running up the debt, and running up the interest costs. I have many quotes right here with respect to where we are as a result of it.

Let me show just exactly where we are now. For a stimulus, we are going to have one, whether we like it or not. If you listen to the President and you listen to us Democrats, we will agree with him on homeland security, we will agree with him on defense, we will agree with him on health care. It is just a matter of whatever it is. If you pay for defense, $20 billion; if you pay for health care, another $40 billion; if you pay for the first responders, if you pay for port security, if you pay for rail security, if you pay for homeland

security, you add another $20 billion or $30 billion. If we pay the States money--and we should--that is another $20 billion or $30 billion.

That is another $120 or $130 billion stimulus we are going to be putting into the pipeline. We are going to be putting that out this year as a stimulus without a tax cut. With the Democrats or the Republicans, we are still going to be paying out $40 billion or $50 billion a month that we cannot account for--we cannot pay for.

That is stimulus enough. That would send a message, we are not going to run $500 billion deficits, because for that amount we could pay for the blooming homeland security and the war and prescription drugs and AIDS in Africa and all of those things we heard about last night. Fine business. Let's go to it. But let's not fool the American people and say this is going to stimulate or kick-start things. Everybody has the buzz words that pollsters and consultants give them: Kick-start, and growth, and stimulate. They just throw out the words, and we have thrown the economy into a decline.

Let me show just how bad off we are. It came to my attention that the Maastricht Treaty says: In order to be a member of the European Union, the budget deficits have to be held to 3 percent of the GDP, and the gross federal debt to GDP ratio has to be held to 60 percent, in order to assure avoidance of excessive borrowing of members. That is exactly the point. They can see what fiscal responsibility is. They are not going to invest.

You have that fellow who runs around saying deficits don't matter because the Europeans will come over here and supplant the market and they will buy. No, no, they are not going to buy. When the Europeans see this, that you have 3 percent of the GDP and you have to reduce the gross federal debt to the GDP ratio to 60 percent--we have computed it here. Turn to page 17. We can't put the entire record in here. This is the Budget and Economic Outlook for Fiscal Year 2004 to 2013, just issued this morning by the Congressional Budget Office. You will find on page 17 that the debt, the gross Federal debt, is $6,620 trillion for 2003. And the gross domestic product is $10,756 trillion. So the debt as a percent of the GDP is 61.5 percent, and that exceeds the 60 percent requirement.

We can't even join. These smart rascals around here are criticizing the Europeans. We can't even get into the European Union, fiscally, as this article says.

I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

We would be subject to a $20 billion to $50 billion fine right quickly.

We need to rebuild the economy. They will invest. We will get jobs.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article in this week's Business Week, on page 50.

``Is your job next?'' I have been at this 36 going on 37 years now. We said we were going to create so many jobs when we had NAFTA. We have lost exactly 57,100 jobs in textiles alone in the State of South Carolina since NAFTA--57,100.

We have lost 2 million jobs since President Bush took office. He said: My economic plan last year is encapsulated in one word--jobs. So he got fast track. Everybody, as this article shows, headed to China. Not just the smokestack jobs, but the service jobs. Not just the service jobs, but the high-tech jobs.

What we need to do, like President Nixon, is take those States where we have a deficit in the balance of trade and put in a 10-percent import surcharge. I was here when we did it. We went around with Senator Mansfield to explain it to all the heads of state--nine countries in Europe--that is what we ought to do: We ought to hold up on this Eximbank financing the building of your plants. Because if you did get the economy going, it is not going in America, instead it is creating jobs in downtown Shanghai.

Right to the point, we ought to enforce 301. We ought to do away with that Bermuda thing. I am talking fast because my time has reached the endpoint here. But right to the point here, we have to start rebuilding a competitive trade policy, on the one hand, and get ahold of ourselves like the Governors and the mayors, and start paying the bill and cut out this nonsense about tax cuts stimulating.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to thank chairman Burns and Ranking Member Byrd for their support of the National Park Service Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program. I see the Chairman's Committee report has included language requiring the Park Service to give careful consideration to applications for assistance for the Ohio River Trail, the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail and the Tuscaloosa Nature Preserve and Hiking Trail. I would like to also bring the trail redevelopment project at Charles Towne Landing to your attention.

Charles Towne Landing in Charleston, SC, was the first successful European/African settlement in South Carolina between 1670 and 1680. It is one of four original settlement sites remaining in the United States. In 1971, the State of South Carolina designated the site as a State Park comprised of 663 acres, of which 196 acres are high ground and 467 acres are salt marsh and freshwater lagoons. Three trails make up over 6 miles of paths which edge freshwater lagoons and wetlands. When these trails were originally constructed in 1970 no consideration was given to disability access, erosion control or archaeological cultural resources. Today, the trails are in a serious state of disrepair. Would the Chairman and Ranking Member agree that the Rivers and Trails Program is ideally suited to provide technical assistance to Charles Towne Landing in their trail redevelopment efforts?

I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for their attention to this matter and, again, appreciate their support.

Mr. President, I want to share with my colleagues an article in Golf Journal about the Ford family from my hometown of Charleston, South Carolina. Since 1927, the Ford family has won a number of golf tournaments including 10 Azalea Invitationals, 10 South Carolina or Carolina Amateur crowns, 20-some city titles and 50 club championships. I am proud to recognize this talented family, and I ask that this article be reprinted in the Record.

The article follows:

[From Golf Journal, Jan.-Feb., 2003]

Model Tee Fords

(By Rich Skyzinski)

The Fords of Charleston, S.C., much like the Kennedys of

Massachusetts or the Baldwins of Hollywood, have a family

tradition. For nearly a century, one generation after another

has been reared by a philosophy handed down much like an old

family recipe. The motto on the family crest ought to read,

If you want to be good at something, play golf.

Role models have never been lacking. If any Ford

demonstrated a desire for golf, he or she didn't need to look

far for inspiration or instruction. Good golf genes have

blessed generations, dating most notably to the second of

five men named Frank Cordes Ford. Now 98, Frank Sr. (actually

the second FCF) was the most accomplished of the Fords, and

he can prove it. He can still rattle off a lot of the

stories, in rapid-fire fashion: the games with Bob Jones,

Harry (Lighthorse) Cooper, Henry Picard and Craig Wood; how

he won a dollar bill (signed and framed) from Horton Smith;

the day he one-upped the great Ben Hogan by hitting a 4-wood

to within eight inches of the hole after Hogan hit a 3-wood

shot to eight feet from virtually the same fairway location.

If ever a forebear set a standard for his progenies to

shoot at, it's Granddaddy (Frank Sr.). He made sure any

challenger was in it for the long haul. How else could you

top his record of seven South Carolina Amateur crowns (and

three runner-up finishes), four Azalea Invitational

victories, 11 Charleston City titles and 18 Country Club of

Charleston championships?

``The Ford family is known, certainly in the city and

probably around the state, because of golf,'' says Bert

Atkinson, 1991 U.S. Mid-Amateur runner-up and a C.C. of

Charleston member. ``I think it's probably always been that

way.''

If you are a Charleston golfer, at one time or another, a

Ford has beaten you. Since 1927, family members have won 10

Azaleas, 10 South Carolina or Carolinas Ams, 20-some city

titles and 50 club championships, give or take a few. An

extra room would be needed for all the junior, mid-amateur

and team trophies.

How did this all start? Tommy Ford, one of Granddaddy's

three sons, claims it was not planned.

``No family ever gets together and says, `Here is what

we're going to do,' '' says the 58-year-old. ``It comes to

you; you deal with it. If you become good, you try to live up

to it. When you play well, the headlines start to reinforce

this idea that you're living up to your dad's records. And

all of a sudden you are, not that you ever tried. But you're

fulfilling a pattern that started 60 years ago.''

Granddaddy speaks from the other side of the equation. ``I

think they saw the fun I got out of golf,'' he allows, ``and

maybe some of them wanted to play because they thought it

would be fun. Most of them worked pretty hard at it.''

It isn't ``a guy thing,'' either. Granddaddy's mother, Anne

(Sissie) Ford, who moved to Charleston following her

husband's death in 1918, won the C.C. of Charleston Women's

championship in 1927. A year later, she lost in the final to

her daughter, Anne Ford Melton.

And family members also are quick to credit Granddaddy's

wife, Betsy. She was a caring, nurturing mentor who made the

game what it should be for kids: fun. She also was an

accomplished player, collecting a half-dozen club

championships and two city titles.

Betsy, who died in 1998, and her husband played different

roles in advancing the family tradition. She had a deep love

for the game and passed it down to scores of youngsters. She

helped her three sons and any grandchildren or great-

grandchildren who wanted to play the game and was involved

in many club and city youth programs. Once a youngster

became proficient enough to break 80, Granddaddy would

begin to share his passion and try to light their

competitive fires.

``I don't remember any pressure or push, other than the

brilliance of a mother, who believed that we should know a

little about the game at the age we were,'' Tommy says.

``There was a nudge towards lessons during the summer, but it

was also, `Go hunting. Do whatever you want to do' from

her.''

Sarah (Mahony) Ford Rijswijk, Frank Jr.'s widow, adds,

``She said, ``If you marry into the Ford family, dear, you'd

better play golf.' . . . I thought they were a little nuts

because I played tennis. But I took up golf and Betsy was the

one who led me into the game. She was the most wonderful

teacher. She had a beautiful swing, classic, and was one of

the few people I know who was really interested in your game,

everybody's game. She really helped everybody. She was the

consummate golfer.''

Betsy's favorite classroom was the par-3 11th hole at the

Country Club of Charleston. The hole is a classic Seth Raynor

design with the green elevated some 10 or 12 feet and sharp

drop-offs on each side. Betsy, a.k.a. Granny, would take a

youngster to the bottom of the slope in front of the green

and show them how to chip with a 7-iron. They would practice

that shot over and over until the youngster could bump a shot

into the hillside with an artisan's touch.

It's been more than 40 years since Frank III was tutored

there by his grandmother but, he says, ``I remember that to

this day. She taught me to chip, and I've never chipped with

a wedge or a sand wedge like so many guys do. I'm going to

grab my 7-iron because that's what she taught me.''

Even if a youngster had only a passing interest in the

game, Betsy made her mark. Billy Ford, her middle son,

recalls going out for a round with his son, Billy Jr., whom

he thought was a novice, but evoked a double take with his

confident practice swing on the first tee.

``Where'd you learn that?'' his father asked.

``Granny,'' he replied proudly. ``Granny taught me.''

Betsy rarely commented on any of the youngsters' successes,

but they could sense her pride when they did well.

``She could instill desire, which I think is a hard thing

to do,'' says Sarah. ``I won my first club championship and I

beat her, and I think she was happier about it than I was.''

Granddaddy himself was introduced to the game at age 15, by

his mother and an uncle who lived in Canada. But he learned

swing basics from a group of African-American caddies in

Summerville, S.C. ``They used to say, `This is how you hold

the club. This is the way you stand,' '' he recalls.

He developed a tendency to sway during his backswing

instead of pivoting, but there was little anyone could do to

change this; after all, the swing worked for him. There was a

time when the club's head professional was Henry Picard,

later a Masters and PGA Championship winner. Picard had what

was considered one of the finest swings in the game, but not

even he could convince Granddaddy.

``He said, `I'm going to get you out of this swaying,' ''

he remembers. ``I said, `Now Henry, listen. Don't try to give

me any lessons because you can do whatever you want, but I'm

not going to change my swing.''

``He said, `Okay,' and never again told me how to do it.''

Granddaddy carried that insistence with him to the cement

and concrete business. Tommy tells a story of his dad trying

to sell a prospective customer cement at 20 cents a bag, only

to be told, ``I don't need any cement.'' Ford lowered the

price to 15 cents a bag and, receiving the same reply, went

to 10 cents and then to a nickel.

``The customer finally said he couldn't afford not to buy

it at that price and Dad got a customer for life,'' Tommy

concludes. ``He was the same way in golf as in business. He

wanted to make every sale, and he wanted to win every time he

stepped onto the golf course.''

Granddaddy confined most of his playing to a local and

regional level because he had a business to run. He qualified

for the only U.S. Amateur he entered, in 1934 at The Country

Club in Brookline, Mass., losing in the third round. He

played until he was 90, then gave away his clubs one day

after he shot 45 for nine holes. Atkinson, who played with

him that day, remembers the exchange afterward.

``I said, `That's pretty good playing, Mr. Ford.'''

Atkinson says. ``He put his arm around me and said, `Yeah,

but if I was 30 years younger I would have beaten you guys

butt good.'''

None of Granddaddy's three sons were as passionate about

the game as their father. Tommy blossomed into an

accomplished player later in life, with seven club

championships and a handful of senior titles. Billy was a

good junior player and captain of the University of North

Carolina golf team in 1953, but hasn't competed much since.

Frank Jr., who died at age 44 in a 1974 Eastern Airlines

plane crash, played little competitive golf.

If the old man's competitive fires were passed down, most

of them found their way to Frank III, who has qualified for

nearly a dozen U.S. Amateurs and four U.S. Mid-Amateurs, and

his son, Cordes (Frank Cordes Ford IV), a 26-year-old law

student at the University of South Carolina with his own

collection of trophies. In 1996, Cordes completed a rare

double when he won the Carolinas Amateur a week after Frank

III took the state am. ``They're the two that have the desire

to go out there,'' says Sarah, ``They want to win.''

By contrast, Billy says, ``I'm not trying to win anything

anymore, just have a nice golf day.''

Which isn't to say the patriarch's presence has not been

felt. Billy once was about to close out a match at Biltmore

Forest Country Club in Asheville, N.C., when Granddaddy came

up to him, put his arm around the teenager and said, ``Son,

this is where I won my war bond.''

``Everything's fine. I've got 20 feet for birdie, but I got

it back to here,'' says Billy, imitating a putting stroke,

``and just locked; couldn't move it. It exploded in my hand,

went past the hole about 15 feet. I three-putted that, snap-

hooked it on 16, hit a limb coming out of the woods on 17.

Before I knew it, I went from 5 up with five to play to 1 up

with one to play. It's funny now, but I was in tears then.''

Because of the family's countless successes, there's an

assumption throughout the Carolinas that Fords should be

accomplished players simply because of their last name.

``I felt like I was supposed to play better than whatever I

did,'' says Billy. ``There was certain pressure on me,

sure.''

Tommy, who's a decade younger than his brother, adds:

``Your identity is golf, because you grew up seeing golf and

that's what you gravitated to. But I maintain you do the best

you can for your own expectations, not necessarily for this

family tradition thing. I never wanted to win tournaments to

extend my father's streak.''

Tommy is said to have the best swing in the family. People

in Charleston often call him ``sweet-swingin' Tommy Ford. ''

``The `sweet-swingin' does not always live up to people's

expectations,'' he says. ``They know I'm Frank Ford's son so

they think I am good. They remember what you've accomplished.

You carry that expectation with you more so because of Daddy,

Billy, Frank--the trickle-down effect of the background of

winning. People view us as winners because that's what they

remember Daddy doing, Frank doing, Billy doing. They expect

us to be hard to beat. That's a little bit difficult

sometimes.''

Frank III's sister, Anne Ford Strickland, lived near

Winston-Salem, N.C., for years and says the difference in the

pressure she felt was palpable. ``I never felt anything up

there,'' she insists. ``Part of it may have been because I

had my married name. people didn't know me by Ford.''

The Fords have never called attention to their exploits.

Sometimes, even family members are unaware of them. Anne

played in a C.C. of Charleston girls' program with Beth

Daniel, who went on to become an LPGA Hall of Famer and a

favorite of Anne's son David. Looking through Anne's

scrapbooks, David came upon a newspaper clipping about his

mom's victory over Daniel in a junior club championship in

the mid-1960s.

``You beat Beth Daniel?'' he asked, eyes widening.

What do you expect? She is a Ford.

I concur with my colleague from New Hampshire. I understand the importance of this funding for the States affected by the high

rates of criminal alien incarceration and I am hopeful we can provide an adequate funding level for SCAAP during conference.

Mr. President, earlier today, a WTO appeals panel ``ruled'' that the United States violated our WTO obligations with the enactment of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset, CDO, Act, commonly known as the Byrd amendment. This continues a longstanding effort by the WTO to systematically undermine U.S. laws that assist our besieged manufacturing sector. The CDO ensures that the U.S. companies and their workers can compete against unfair imports from foreign companies who dump their products in the U.S. If a foreign company continues to dump its products in the U.S. after having been found guilty of that practice, the CDO allows that future penalty tariffs payments be made to the companies who are being injured. We would all prefer that companies halt their illegal dumping, but if a foreign competitor chooses to continue the predatory practices, then the tariffs assist the U.S. workers and industry to remain competitive.

The CDO provides that antidumping tariffs benefit the companies injured from foreign dumping. Previously, this money went to the U.S. Treasury. Now the money assists the impacted companies to help them remain competitive. invest in new technologies and keep jobs in the U.S. In 2001, less than $230 million was paid out to 900 companies. In September 2002, a WTO panel ruled that CDO placed the U.S. in violation of its obligations. Today, a WTO appellate upheld that decision. It is becoming obvious that the WTO is intruding on U.S. sovereignty and has acted beyond the scope of its mandate in this case. Even the Bush administration has recognized this trend nothing that the WTO ``. . . has created obligations that do not exist.''

The WTO dispute resolution system is in need of serious overhaul. The WTO and its appellate body are creating new rights and obligations where none exist in the actual WTO agreement. U.S. trade laws designed to insure a level playing field for U.S. industries and their workers are being seriously eroded by the WTO. This must end.

The CDO is good public policy. In a time of uncertainty, it benefits U.S. manufacturers and workers. It must be retained.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I thank the distinguished chairwoman.

Let's talk about the good news with respect to Amtrak. Eight months ago, the Bush administration worked with the Amtrak board to get a new director to operate this particular railroad. The selection, of course, was Mr. David Gunn who had operated the Metro system here in Washington and up in New York, another particular system, but more particularly, the Canadian railroad, with tremendous success. He had just retired to his home there in Nova

Scotia, and they finally persuaded him to come and take on this task because he knows railroads. He knows what needs to be done. He is for reform, and he set about doing just that in the last 8 months.

What has happened is that he has turned around and gotten out of the express business. If my distinguished colleague from Arizona, the chairman of our authorization committee, Senator McCain--if I could get his attention, the distinguished chairman of our authorizing committee, Senator McCain, I wanted him to know that our David Gunn, who is operating Amtrak, went first right to the heart of the number of employees. And those who were not producing he has already eliminated. He got out of the express business. That wasn't paying at all. And with a lot of objections and everything else from fruit growers, flower folks, and everything else, he got out of the express business. He took the Kentucky Cardinal line, a passenger line that I think the distinguished Senator from Arizona cited several times in the debate about a tremendous waste, and discontinued it.

But more particularly, he opened up his books--which has never been done before--to the Department of Transportation. And the budget he is now operating under was OK'd, signed off on by this administration by the inspector general of the Department of Transportation, plus the Secretary.

That reminds me to thank colleagues who are cosponsors on the other side: The distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has been the chairman of our Surface Transportation Committee; Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine; Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; and Senator Arlen Specter of Pittsburgh.

When I approached Senator Specter earlier today, he said: Let me just do some checking. He wanted to make sure this was in consonance with what the administration was having done. That is the case today.

So the good news is that we are on course with what Mr. Gunn calls the conservative, tight budget. We are not in the red there right now. Yes, this $1.2 billion allows for the payback to the Department of Transportation. In other words, it is just swapping moneys of a $100 million loan back to the Department of Transportation. But he is working again on the reservation system with the Internet reservations and otherwise. Some economies can be had there with the personnel. A lot of these reservations now are coming through with the Internet.

I could list out many other good things. There is a bill in Chairman McCain's committee with 30 cosponsors for reform. I pledge to work with the distinguished Senator from Arizona, with whom I have worked during the past few years in perfect harmony. We have agreed on just about everything. We wanted reform. He wants reform. I want reform.

I was having difficulties from time to time trying to explain what they were doing because I couldn't get the information. But we now have an open operation there with David Gunn.

What happens is, with the $1.2 billion the Appropriations Committee just reported out, they thought they had some carryovers and everything else and cut it back to $826 million. With that cutback to $826 million--it was not considered by us or anybody on the committee--that actually is a 27-percent cut under the present operation. We presently are operating on a continuing resolution of 1.1, plus the $100 million loan to pay back to the Department of Transportation. So what happens is, that is a 27-percent cut.

Mr. Gunn comes in in distress and says: Look, if that occurs, we will run out. We are operating very economically, very conservatively. I have some other initiatives that I will put in, but by April, under this particular $826 million amount, I will have to be closing down sometime this spring.

None of us wants that. I am sure the chairman of the committee and all of us want to make sure we do the right thing.

Incidentally, we have an operator in Mr. Gunn who is not going to play games. We have had others who evidently liked the job, needed the job, or wanted the job, or whatever it was, and so they went along over the last 30 years. To give colleagues some grasp of this situation, Amtrak has always come for over $1 billion in requests, and they have always compromised at around $500 million. So at $500 million, on an average, per year, it amounts to about $15 billion in a 30-year period.

Now, wait a minute; 9/11; the airlines immediately got $15 billion. Plus the airport and airways transportation act is another $15 billion. Here comes where we really need some reform, $30 billion in 1 year, and we keep jumping and picking and picking and nagging and fussing at Amtrak when we ought to be fussing at each other. We are the ones who really haven't gotten into it.

Thanks to the leadership of Senator McCain, we are getting into it because, as chairman, he has said: We are not going to let this one go unless we work together on reform.

With that in mind, let me yield the floor and thank these particular Senators and Chairman Murray here on her leadership also.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and salute a dear friend of mine and tireless servant of the American people for his long and distinguished service on the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States. After 25 years of service, the Honorable Soloman Blatt, Jr., Senior Judge for the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, will step down as a member of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference.

Effective January 20, 2003, the longest tenure of any current member of any Judicial Conference Committee, as well as one of the longest tenures during any era, will come to an end and both the judiciary and the Congress will have lost a tremendous resource.

Ever mindful of the fiscal realities facing Congress and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Judge Blatt has always demonstrated the unique ability to strike a balance, articulating well the most critical needs of the judiciary while recognizing and appreciating the competing demands the subcommittee faces within its vast jurisdiction. During Judge Blatt's more than 25 years of service on the Budget Committee, the judiciary's budget grew from $438.5 million in fiscal year 1978, to a request of approximately $5 billion for fiscal year 2003. But perhaps on of his greatest achievements during his tenure on the Budget Committee was revising the role of the committee from that of simply assembling or adding up the resource requirements coming from the substantive committees of the Judicial Conference, to that of formulating a budget request that was fiscally responsible and politically acceptable outside the judiciary, while also addressing the immediate needs of the judiciary's burgeoning workload.

Judge Blatt is an honest broker. Appropriations Subcommittee allocations get tighter and tighter each year, pitting the needs of executive branch agencies against the needs of the judiciary. But I always knew when Judge Blatt came to me concerned about a particular aspect of the Federal courts, it was real, and I would do my best to accommodate his request.

Mr. President, the judiciary, and indeed the Congress, will always be indebted to Judge Blatt for his years of service on behalf of the Federal court system. I know that I will miss his input and candor during our deliberations on funding for the Federal judiciary within the annual Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations bills.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Protection from Violent Programming Act. This legislation is of vital importance to our young children and their families.

The purpose of the bill is to require the Federal Communications Commission to consider whether to institute a ``Safe Harbor'' during which gratuitously violent television programming could not be televised to America's children. Today, I am joined in this effort by several of my colleagues, Senators Hutchison, Inouye, and Dorgan, who are all original cosponsors of the legislation. I have sponsored similar legislation in each of the last five Congresses and this same legislation was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee during the 106th Congress by a vote of 17 to 1. I feel compelled to reintroduce this bill again to stem the tide of violent programming that is becoming more and more prevalent in our society. Unfortunately, violence in the media begets violence by our youths and we have an obligation to address this societal problem head on. We know commercial interests will not, so we must act.