Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I was just notified that the amendment was called up, and I do not have my entire file on this subject here. But I have a mental file because this has been discussed back and forth over the past several months. What really occurred, Madam President, is that we made a disastrous mistake in joining in the World Trade Organization. We joined the WTO without the caution exercised in joining the United Nations. We would never have really joined the United Nations and maintained our support for its operations had we not had our veto power in the U.N. Security Council. The creation of a security council with an absolute veto by any one member was debated at length at the time of the adoption of the United Nations. Here we were, in the family of some 117 countries at the time--and I think maybe 137 have joined since--and in this family of nations, we were looked upon as the rich nation that could afford any and every kind of contribution for the freedom of man the world around. This was particularly true when it came to economic affairs. We agreed to act as the market of first resort in order to rebuild the shattered economies and in order to develop the third world. If we had any illusions about how we are perceived in most international organizations we need only to look back to 3 weeks ago when the--the People's Republic of China--faced condemnation by a U.N. resolution criticizing the People's Republic for human rights abuses. In the United Nations they passed a resolution, joined in the Assembly with the European Community and the United States, to get a hearing before the Human Rights Commission. Our friends, the People's Republic of China, immediately went down to Africa and corralled the votes, and when the issue came up 3 weeks ago, the People's Republic of China had the votes within the U.N. Human Rights Commission that it was what they called a nonissue, and not to be discussed. So here is an example of the problems we face in the international organizations, rather than the United States being the leader we were immediately put on the defensive and roundly condemned in the developing world. We may think of ourselves as the light upon nations leading the way to democracy but in international organizations we are viewed as the hypocritical rich uncle constantly lecturing others on how they should behave. With respect to the World Trade Organization itself, we argued at the time--and I will argue at length here this evening--how we lost our rights under section 301. So we have lost those rights under 301. Again, not just 3 weeks ago but this past week, you see where the United States of America has abandoned the Eastman Kodak case, instead of using sanctions for unfair practices not covered under the WTO the Japanese have called our bluff and said in the new WTO era all disputes must be taken to the WTO. We had no choice but to comply with their desire to settle this dispute. If the WTO found against Japan and for the United States in that particular case, I can tell you right now that would be the end of the WTO. If the WTO rules in favor of the Japanese in the Kodak case I can tell you right now, we won't need a review commission, the pressure to withdraw from the WTO will be overwhelming. This case amply displayed that we have lost our independence in trade policy, the WTO has achieved its principal objective, the elimination of U.S. unilateralism in trade policy. There are two very important individuals that are worried about these strains. One is the President of the United States, and the other is the likely Republican nominee for the Presidency here come November. These two folks are unindicted coconspirators if you will conspiring to pass the GATT. The Senator from South Carolina would then charge them-- that is the President and the Republican nominee--as conspirators unindicted to cover their backsides. The Senator from Iowa has put in S. 1437, the Dole bill, Calendar No. 253, to establish a commission to review the dispute settlement reports of the World Trade Organization. Madam President, this is not a well-conceived thing. It need not be well conceived because it really is to get the people past the Presidential election. But the commission shall be composed of five members, all of whom shall be judges of the Federal judicial circuits and shall be appointed by the President, after consultation with the majority leader and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader and the minority leader of the Senate, the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Finance of the Senate. Here is a high-level commission of Federal district judges from the Federal judicial circuit, plus these leaders in both Houses, and everything else, to get together to do what? To determine if three adverse rulings by the World Trade Organization are, of course, adverse, being against us, and, if so, then they can memorialize Congress to pass a resolution to withdraw from the World Trade Organization. We can do that now. We do not need a commission. This crowd has certainly got political gall to buck the responsibilities of being Senators and Congressmen to any and everybody else. It is sort of hit-and-run driving in politics in this day--``I am concerned. I am concerned. I am disturbed.'' This crowd should quit getting concerned and disturbed, and let us start to do some things. This does nothing. It can be used on the political stump in the Presidential debates later on. ``Oh, yes, don't worry it. We got a high-level commission that we passed this year to review it.'' Well, go over there and ask the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and he will tell you these Federal district judges have no authority to serve on such a commission. In fact, they will be forbidden to serve on it. This is hogwash, a cover-your-backside kind of resolution to show that they are concerned and they are disturbed and they are watching it carefully, as they berate, ``I am for jobs, I am for jobs, I am for jobs.'' They are nothing but pollster politicians running around--``I am for the family and against crime. I am for jobs and against taxes.'' And all they do is they take these seven or eight hot buttons, and they make their little TV squibs, 20-second bites. As long as they can articulate a lot of them with a lot of money, a lot of TV shots and everything, come to public service, and they do not know anything else to do. They get in this sort of game here tonight where we have the armed services bill, a very important measure. I serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, so I am familiar with many of the particular issues that need be decided here by the U.S. Senate on the armed services authorization. But, instead of that, we got any and everything--cattle, dog--bring it up with respect to this. This is a grab bag for the Presidential race, and we do it, so-called, with dignity and in seriousness of purpose, and treat it seriously by this news crowd that my friend James Fallows has written an entire book about, now, about breaking the news, how the media undermine American democracy. So it will be my purpose this evening--and I will be taking up a good part of the evening, I would think, because I do not have some of the colleagues alerted, but I will be taking up a good part of the evening reading this bill and the Fallows book about how the media has undermined American democracy by refusing to engage in the real issues the American people should be engaged in. Fallows really has a very interesting approach, Madam President. He describes the dichotomy between Walter Lippmann, on the one hand, and John Dewey on the other. Lippmann contended that the press should be an erudite, an unusually trained and skilled group on all the complicated subjects, and together they should decide the more or less bill of particulars for the American public and the programs and the way they emitted the news. In contrast, John Dewey said, yes, they should be well trained and skilled, fully informed of this particular subject matter, but, more particularly, they should engage the American public in subject matters that need to be engaged in--and that, they have not. And to tell the American people the truth even at times they do not want to hear the truth. The truth is the most important subject totally neglected in this particular session of the 104th Congress is the subject matter of trade. The helter-skelter treatment given trade in November year before last was just that. We were force fed without the proper leadership, without the proper hearings. We tried our best at the level of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that I chaired at that particular time to bring the witnesses from all the different trade organizations. Madam President, I am getting good news. I feel that my good friend from Iowa realizes how serious we are. I do not want to just act like we do not have a point here and we are just politically rejoining. I happen to be a friend of the distinguished former majority leader, the Republican nominee for the Presidency. I will never forget the early days when I had suggested the appointment of Clement Furman Haynesworth to the U.S. Supreme Court, a distinguished South Carolinian, and I turned to then freshman Senator Robert Dole, of Kansas, who stayed in the Chamber intermittent hours on end to help me with that particular appointment. We have been close friends ever since. But I had explained to the distinguished former majority leader that this was a subject matter not to be glossed over with one of these cover-your-backside kind of amendments to get a judicial council like they are studying it and they are watching it closely--all, of course, apple sauce to get us past the November election and then once again the total drain of America's industrial backbone. I would be delighted to continue. I know my distinguished former majority leader, the former President pro tempore of the Senate, the Senator from West Virginia, had a studied amendment here. I wanted to be able to discuss that. But I have just been notified that the distinguished Senator from Iowa has a different idea perhaps at the moment for this particular evening about his amendment. And I learned in the courtroom long ago, when the judge is ruling with you, to hush, so I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, right to the point, that is exactly what is the trouble right this minute. The Finance Committee approved GATT and the WTO. The President of the United States approved GATT and the WTO. Senator Bob Dole approved and led the fight for the approval of GATT and the WTO. Now, why is the President this very minute in France beating up on the council of the seven economic ministers? Why is he beating up on the Japanese, trying to get their attention? Because the World Trade Organization and the GATT agreement has chilled progress in trade disputes. Specifically, the Japanese will not even talk to us. They have WTO. They know they have the vote. So, under 301, we found out we could not use the sanctions, and if we tried to, they would retaliate against us. Not retaliate as the distinguished Senator just referred--that is exactly our dilemma. So they say, point 1, it probably is a matter of terrorism. Because publicly the public can understand that, and we all really regret the loss. I have had 10 of those airmen--we did not lose them--we had 10 hurt in Charleston, and we had from the 9th Air Force, I would say, 30 or 40 at least flying those F-16's out of Shaw Air Base. So I do not talk casually about that. But the real No. 1 trade issue is this dilemma we have gotten into with the World Trade Organization. We are not making any progress at all. We had a semiconductor agreement. Instead of adhering to the agreement, they ignore it now. They said, go to the WTO, go to the WTO. We know that is a loser now. So, politically, before the American people can appreciate --and my distinguished colleague from Iowa can appreciate--the fact that the WTO is a loser, before we can learn that, let us get in ahead of the curve here, of public despondency over the trend of trade in this so-called globalization, globalization, globalization. Specifically, I want to make one good reference that is categorically uncontested. In 1981, we had before then-President Reagan a textile bill. The deficit and the balance of trade in textiles in the United States was $4 billion. The deficit in the European Community in textile trade was $4 billion. I noted just recently, of course, that the Europeans enforce their trade agreements. We do not. We act like we have these rights, and we are in there moving and we are watching and everything else of that kind. We just never have been astute to really go against these dumping cases. We have asked for more customs agents and everything else. The authorities, customs, tell us there are as much as $5 billion in transshipments violations coming in here with this cheap clothing, way less than any kind of minimum wage, child labor and slave labor, you might call it, in the People's Republic, all being manufactured. The deficit and the balance of trade in Europe in textiles is less than $1 billion. The deficit in the balance of textile trade is $35.8 billion. So, the Europeans know how to deal and enforce, and categorically have. We have taken the position of Uncle Sucker. We have done it in defense, and we know it. We have done it in all these other international organizations, and we know it. It is time we start protecting our industrial backbone. America's strength and security rests like on a three-legged stool. We have the one leg of defense. That is unquestioned. That is what they mean by superpower. We have the leg of the values as a Nation, and that is strong. Yes, we feed the hungry in Somalia. We sacrifice for democracy, to build it in Haiti. We commit troops to try to bring peace in Bosnia. So our values, we all know, of the American good will, stand for freedom and democracy the world around. But the third leg of economic strength, that leg was fractured over some 45 to 50 years now. The cold war, where we had to intentionally, in a sense, sacrifice that leg in order to keep the alliance together. But now, with the fall of the wall, we continue to act like we are fat, rich and happy. The American people see it. Why do you think they followed Pat Buchanan wherever he went? Because he was talking sense on trade. I do not agree with him on many of his other stances, but he was solid as a dollar on the subject of jobs and trade. That is why he was picking up Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all, as long as he talked that sense on trade. My workers know, for example, under NAFTA we have already lost, last year, 1995, with the closure of 21 mills, the loss of 10,000 textile jobs. Almost that many already this year have gone down to Mexico and to Malaysia. You go over to the Secretary of Labor and the fine little gentleman gives you the singsong, ``retrain, retrain, retrain.'' Madam President, I wish to get your attention here. If you look at Oneida Mills that just closed--they have been there 37 years--just the other day, 487 workers, most of them female. They make T-shirts. The age average is 47 years of age. Let us retrain them and assume tomorrow morning they are already expert computer operators. Are you going to hire the expert computer operator, 47 years of age, or the 21-year-old computer operator? The answer is obvious. You are not going to take on the retirement costs. You are not going to take on these medical costs. But that is what they continue to tell you up here. The American people are losing these jobs, losing this industry, losing, as a Nation, our economic strength. Superpower--they are ashes in my mouth. You cannot use the nuclear bomb, we all know that. We cannot meet them man for man on manpower. We try to develop our technology, but the truth of the matter is, by the year 2000--Fingleton, read his book ``Blind Side''--they will have a larger economy with 120 million and less than the size of California, compared with our 260 million. They are already our manufacturing superior. Give them 4 more years, and they will have a larger economy than we will have. In 15 years, the People's Republic of China will be ahead of us. We are going the way of England, I can tell you that right now: a second-rate nation with a lot of parliamentary papers and scandalous newspapers, parliamentary maneuvers around here and debate, debate, debate: ``I am concerned,'' ``I am worried,'' ``I am disturbed,'' ``I am concerned,'' ``I am worried,'' and nothing happens. It is all procedural. That sorry contract over there on the House side was all procedural bunk. Term limits, product liability--I can just go down the list of all of those things they had in there. Constitutional amendments--it is like running up in the grandstand like a football team: ``We want a touchdown.'' We are on the field, and we are supposed to balance the budget, but we have to hear all the procedural crap so we can get to the next election and try to get elected and try to hoodwink the people even further. It is time we stop this nonsense and realize--I say to the distinguished Senator from Iowa that I am just as much an agricultural Senator as he is. I got up to WHO in Des Moines, IA. It was 5:30 in the morning. ``No Democrat would appear.'' I did. The first question for me was, ``Senator, how do you expect to get any votes out here in Iowa when you are standing for all the protectionism for the textile industry?'' I said, ``Wait one minute.'' It was a young lady. I said, ``Madam, the truth of the matter is that we don't ask for any protection. What we ask for is protection of our agricultural products. We believe in price supports and import quotas and those Export-Import Bank subsidies. We've got wheat, too, and corn. We've got agricultural products.'' Until I was Governor, we were an agricultural State. Now the majority are in industry today. We have to find technical training and skills, but we think highly of agriculture. So do not think we do not know about agriculture and jobs and wheat. We want to sell it, too, but we have to have a balanced approach to try to maintain America's industrial backbone. So I appreciate the position of the distinguished Senator from Iowa tonight, and I hope he will give me a little bit more notice next time, because I thought once the distinguished Senator from Kansas, the former majority leader, had left us, that that was one problem solved and we could go on and get some other things done. But I can tell you now why that passed before with all of those. We had fast track, no amendments, limited time. When your amendment comes, we will not have fast track, we will have amendments, and we will have unlimited time, and my distinguished senior Senator has set the pace for unlimited time and debate. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. That's right. The Senator from New York was instrumental in helping us restore the SEC budget. It wasn't easy. I think the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee knows the situation better than most. We served together on the Appropriations Committee for 14 years. I think he would be surprised how tight the funding situation has gotten. For fiscal year 1997, the President's budget proposals for the Justice Department alone are up $1.947 billion above the current year. The Federal Judiciary is up $414 million. And, so on. Now, we on the Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee aren't going to get anywhere near those increases in the section 602(b) allocation process. We can't fund those programs, let alone State, Commerce, and Small Business, and other independent agencies. Let alone increases for the Securities and Exchange Commission. So these are the reasons I have held up this bill. I applaud the changes you have made in securities laws, but I must ask, do you intend to maintain the Senate position on this fee issue? I mean will you and the chairman not reduce section 6(b) fees that are collected and retained by the SEC, as part of this legislation?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. These fees go to Treasury. They do not do anything to support the SEC. The agency cannot use those receipts. The only fees that the SEC is able to use--to pay personnel to provide for stable markets and to prevent fraud--are those that are collected and deposited in the SEC's appropriation account. It is those that are above the statutory fee level of one-fiftieth of 1-percent. It is exactly these fees that the House bill proposes to terminate. You know for the past 2 years the SEC has had something of a near- death experience because of problems with its authorization. It wasn't until the last day of the 103d Congress that the other side removed their holds on a bill that enabled the agency to continue functioning. And, just last summer, over my objections, our fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill proposed cutting the SEC by 20 percent below a freeze at fiscal year 1995 levels. Here we have a law enforcement agency, and an agency in charge of stopping insider trading and fraud, and the appropriations bill reduced its funding far below the level it needed to continue operations.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Of course. The Senator from Connecticut is our authority on securities and financial market matters.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the securities bill before us, H.R. 3005, makes a number of very important changes in securities regulation, such as regulation of investment advisors and mutual funds. The Senate bill was approved by the Banking Committee on a bipartisan 16 to 0 vote. I have no problem with the Senate version of this measure. I would support it. However, I have a big problem with the House companion to this bill. It contains provisions that would shift much of the cost of running the Securities and Exchange Commission from firms registering securities to the general taxpayer. I am concerned because of the potential impact on the SEC and, frankly, that this will require the Appropriations Committee to absorb $200 million at the very time that discretionary funding is being cut. In the present fiscal year, the SEC's budget totals $297.4 million. Of this amount, $194 million is derived from section 6(b) securities registration fees and $103.4 million is appropriated from the general fund. So we have a situation in which about two-thirds of the SEC's operation is financed through fees. The House bill seeks to change this situation and shift the entire cost of running the SEC to discretionary appropriations. This shift and reduction in fees would occur over a 5-year period. In short, it cuts collections and tells the Appropriations Committee and the general taxpayers to absorb the costs.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, recently we have been seeing a lot of headlines about violence, destruction, and racial hatred. Amidst these news stories, it is truly heartening to read about a person like Keshia Thomas. This courageous woman from Ypsilanti, MI, has shown the Nation that, despite all evidence to the contrary, there is still hope that we can set aside our differences and someday have a peaceful society. On the afternoon of June 22, the only statement Keshia planned to make was to counterprotest a KKK rally near her hometown. But when she stepped into a group of people that were beating a man and risked bodily harm to protect him, she made a greater statement than she could have dreamed. I was certainly moved by the picture of a young black woman shielding a Ku Klux Klan member from an angry crowd. And from the tremendous response her action has gotten, it appears that people all over the Nation were moved as well. Extremely modest about the incident and her status as ``heroine'', Keshia credits the people who raised her, joking, ``who says teenagers don't listen.'' She considers herself very much a product of her upbringing by her parents and several other adults who taught her from an early age the value of education and tolerance. My office contacted Ms. Thomas and discovered that she was no stranger to Washington, DC. In 1994, Carol Tice, one of the influential people in Keshia's life, took her to the signing of Goals 2000, where she met President Clinton. Other family friends like Joseph Dulin, a principal of an Ann Arbor High School, Joe Lewis, Keshia's horseback riding instructor, and Bernadette Lewis have provided and continue to provide her with support and instruction. Each of these men and women deserve credit in their own right, for recognizing the importance of mentoring young people. Far from the political rhetoric of family values, these people have shown by example what a valuable investment a community can make by supporting its children. The image of Keshia Thomas' bravery and humanitarianism touched us all, and we must remember that--like every image, there is a whole story behind it. Keshia Thomas didn't act with the intention of being lauded by the press or given awards, and that is what makes her actions truly heroic. I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for giving the country a stunning example of compassion and a valuable lesson. Her philosophy of nonviolence echoes that of history's most influential activists. ``Beating someone won't change their mind * * * maybe what I did might change somebody's mind.'' After the incident was over, one of the first things that made Keshia Thomas feel like a hero was her 11-year-old brother telling her he was proud of her. Mr. President, I think we all are.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I filed an amendment as a sense-of-the- Senate amendment on last Friday, believing at the time that you could not amend the Constitution by amending a simple bill, that it would not be in order. I have since learned differently. So I ask unanimous consent that that sense-of-the-Senate amendment be modified into the form of a regular amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we see really where they all stand. Now I can give a good sense of history, 23 years ago, we passed the act that gave rise to the problems we're dealing with today--the 1974 act was passed. So if cloture is agreed upon tomorrow, we will be around with that same amendment--a constitutional amendment, because I have just learned for the first time today--you learn something new every day--that you can amend a simple bill with a joint resolution to amend the Constitution. I have been told otherwise time and again for a good 10 years, ergo, back in the late 1980's, we were trying to get the joint resolution out of the Committee on the Judiciary for 2 or 3 years. We finally got it out. At that particular time we had the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma leading the charge for his particular campaign finance reform, Senator David Boren. We were trying our best to have our amendment considered. I finally worked out with the then-majority leader, Senator George Mitchell, if I could get it out of the committee, he would give me an up-or-down vote. So after a 3-year struggle we did get it out of the committee. Back in April 1988, we got 52 votes to amend the Constitution. We had four Republicans. Again, in 1993, in the form of a sense of the Senate we got 52 votes--a bipartisan effort including 6 Republican colleagues. At that time, I was told that one could not amend the Constitution by amending a bill. I have been told time and time again that what we really needed to do was to correct the fundamental flaw in Buckley versus Valeo. Ironically, what happens is that Buckley versus Valeo amends the Constitution. That is what has occurred. By equating money in politics with speech, the decision essentially amends free speech, because it dictates that those with money can talk and those without money can shut up. You know, the mother's milk of politics, as it has been said many times on the floor of the Senate, is money. And television, of course, has a great deal of control over elections. Anybody that has been elected--and I am proud to have been elected six times to this particular body--will agree. I remember when billboards were a sufficient form of advertising. Today, any consultant will tell you, do not waste your money on billboards or on newspaper advertising or whatever else. You get a far greater return on television advertising. And television advertising is very, very costly. Therefore those with money, those that can bear the cost, have a better chance to prevail. So I am not going to take a long time here because I am hoping we can get cloture, and then I will offer up my amendment, either as a simple amendment to the bill itself or a second degree. And we will stay here as long as we can because it is a simple Senate bill that we would have cloture upon. It seems the distinguished Senator from Kentucky will not allow me an honest mistake, made because I have been instructed over the many years that one could not submit a constitutional amendment. Well, I harken the memory of everyone to when we voted last year on the flag burning legislation. At that time I was asked if I had any amendments. I said, ``Yes, I have two,'' because I had been waiting all year long to bring up the joint resolution to amend the Constitution for a balanced budget. Senator Dole's amendment, S. 1 of this particular Congress provided for a balanced budget using Social Security trust funds, thereby abolishing the law that protects the fund. I thought we ought to retain that protection and not decimate Social Security trying to balance the budget. We never could get that up. The leadership was very astute. They did not call any joint resolutions except to call up the flag burning amendment. When that arose, I said, ``Oh, yes, I have two amendments: one to balance the budget and the other one that pertains to campaign finance reform.'' So, as everyone saw in the U.S. Senate, my amendments failed. They talk about a New York minute: if there is a lesser time period to measure, it is political air. If my amendment passes, we will have this adopted here in a few months, in November, by all the several States. The States came to me, back some 10 years ago when I was working on this and said, ``Please, please, put us in there, too.'' So the legislation will not dictate that just the Congress of the United States is hereby empowered to regulate or control expenditures in Federal elections, but that the States be permitted, also. So that is my amendment, a very simple one. How it is implemented, what they do about bundling, what they do about separate committees and what they do about disclosure, it can be done constitutionally. That is the fundamental flaw in not only the Buckley versus Valeo decision, but in the pending amendment by my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin. They are trying to face up to a real problem, but the solution they propose does not control spending in Federal elections. That is the evil that we confronted back in the early 1970's. You go back to the 1968 Presidential race. You had institutionalized campaign financing. The fundraisers came, for example, to the textile industry. The textile industry, predominant in my State, is almost like the United Fund or the Community Chest. They said, ``Your fair share is $350,000.'' Mr. President, they got 10 textile industries together and they collected $35,000 apiece from each of them in order to comply. This got a lot of people in legal trouble. I could go on, but that is not the point here. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, spoke about buying a Congressman--he told of a bumper sticker he saw, ``Invest in America. Buy a Congressman.'' That was the problem 25 years ago. After the 1968 election when President Nixon took office, John Connally, the Secretary of the Treasury, stated to President Nixon: ``There are a lot of people that have given you millions and thousands and thousands of dollars, and they have not even had a chance to shake your hand. Some you haven't met. I know you want to thank them.'' President Nixon said, ``Fine, I would love it. Give me the chance.'' Connally says, ``Well, come down here in a couple of weeks to my ranch in Texas, and we will have a barbecue. I will invite them there. We can have a grand time. You could meet them and thank them.'' The famous prankster Dick Tuck, a Kennedy confidante, got himself a Brinks' truck, and he put the truck out there on the main road, by the Connally ranch. The press took a picture of the truck and blew it up. They said, ``There it is, Washington is up for sale.'' Republicans and Democrats were hollering. They could not stand it. There was no complaining about disclosure. We just went ``ticker tape'' on all the things we wanted. No. 1, cash was absolutely forbidden, against the law. Contributions were limited. To an individual, $1,000; a race, $2,000, the primary and general elections; and PAC's were limited to $5,000. With regard to PAC's, we said representative groups like the teachers association or the doctors in the group or whatever, like labor unions, they ought to be able to band together. So we decided they should be limited to $5,000. So we set the limit there. We said, now we will have complete disclosure. You will have to file every dollar in and every dollar out, not just with the secretary of the Senate, but with the secretary of state in your own home State, so the people back home can see it and know. Then we said we are going to limit spending overall. Based on a formula: so much per registered voter in each one of the States. My little State of South Carolina, then, would have been limited--we calculated it at around $670,000. This was back in the mid-1970's. Now, double it here from 20 years ago to a million and a half, which is, my gracious, plenty--not $3.5 million and $4 million that it costs for that statewide race. Look at the reports and the amounts and everything else, and the Senator from Illinois is right. More Senators this minute are out collecting money than Senators that avail themselves of the opportunity to participate in this discussion on the floor of the Senate itself. That is a crime. According to the FEC reports, during the 6-year period, a Senator must raise something like $12,000 or $14,000 a week, each week, in order to run for reelection. Then, if you get one of these high-fliers coming in that spends $12 million of their own money, then the ox is in the ditch. You are in real trouble there--people who have achieved financial success by way of family or otherwise, suddenly decide that running for the U.S. Senate would be a fun thing to do. Well, that has to stop. First of all, we must eliminate the poisonous influence of large sums of money. Second, we must get rid of the poisonous influence of the amount time it takes to raise these sums. The flaw in Buckley versus Valeo, and the flaw in all of these amendments, is that money is not controlled, which is ultimately what everybody wants to do. Everybody wants that done: we who serve and have to collect the money, those who give it and participate--whether individual PAC's or otherwise--and it is easily done. If you go back to the last five or six constitutional amendments, they deal with elections. Do not give me this acrimony. I have had this before the Judiciary Committee. Oh, they have so many thousands of amendments, and everybody wants to change them. I have to agree that this is a bad atmosphere up here because the contract crowd wants to amend everything in the Constitution. This is one amendment that has been dutifully considered and voted on by way of a majority at least twice in the last 10 years. I think we can get an even larger majority now that Senator Dole ran into Steve Forbes. He came in like a bolt out of the blue with $35 million and ran around hollering ``Flat tax, flat tax, flat tax.'' Of course, some voters thought, ``They are going to lower my taxes so I will vote for them.'' Come on, Senator Dole was the one calling on the President for a balanced budget. I want to tell Senator Dole, ``Call your colleagues, get on Senator McConnell from Kentucky and tell him now is the time to limit spending.'' The Senator from Kentucky has been frank and straightforward. He says we spend more money on Kibbles and Bits and cat food and dog food than we spend on political campaigns, and we ought to spend more. The Senator from Utah started out the debate. He said: ``If I had to solve it, I think it ought to be recorded, but collect all the money you want and spend it all the time, wherever you want.'' That is exactly the opposite of the intent of campaign finance law. The way we passed that law--Republican and Democrat, overwhelmingly-- was to control spending in Federal elections. Our friend, Senator Buckley of New York at that time, took issue. He sued the Senate, in the person of the Secretary Valeo. That is where we got the Buckley versus Valeo decision. I have the appropriate references here in the prepared remarks. Mr. President, all I can say is here we go again with the same sing- song--a half-hearted attempt to fix the chronic problems surrounding campaign financing. Problems flowing from the Supreme Court's flawed decision of Buckley versus Valeo. We all know the score--we're hamstrung by that decision and the ever increasing cost of a competitive campaign. With the total cost of congressional campaigns skyrocketing from $446 million in 1990 to over $724 million in 1994, the need for limits on campaign expenditures is more urgent than ever. For nearly a quarter of a century, Congress has tried to tackle runaway campaign spending with bills aimed at getting around the disjointed Buckley decision. Again and again, Congress has failed. Let us resolve not to repeat the mistakes of past campaign finance reform efforts, which have become bogged down in partisanship as Democrats and Republicans each tried to gore the other's sacred cows. During the 103d Congress there was a sign that we could move beyond this partisan bickering, when the Senate in a bipartisan fashion expressed its support for a constitutional amendment to limit campaign expenditures. In May 1993, a non-binding sense-of-the-Senate-resolution was agreed to which advocated the adoption of a constitutional amendment empowering Congress and the States to limit campaign expenditures. Now we must take the next step and adopt such a constitutional amendment--a simple, straightforward, nonpartisan solution. As Prof. Gerald G. Ashdown has written in the New England Law Review, amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate campaign expenditures is ``the most theoretically attractive of the approaches- to-reform since, from a broad free speech perspective, the decision in Buckley is misguided and has worsened the campaign finance atmosphere.'' Adds Professor Ashdown: ``If Congress could constitutionally limit the campaign expenditures of individuals, candidates, and committees, along with contributions, most of the troubles * * * would be eliminated.'' Right to the point, in its landmark 1976 ruling in Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court mistakenly equated a candidate's right to spend unlimited sums of money with his right to free speech. In the face of spirited dissents, the Court drew a bizarre distinction between campaign contributions on the grounds that `` * * * the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption outweighs considerations of free speech.'' I have never been able to fathom why that same test--the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption-- does not overwhelmingly justify limits on campaign spending. However, it seems to me that the Court committed a far graver error by striking down spending limits as a threat to free speech. The fact is, spending limits in Federal campaigns would act to restore the free speech that has been eroded by the Buckley decision. After all, as a practical reality, what Buckley says is: Yes, if you have personal wealth, then you have access to television, you have freedom of speech. But if you do not have personal wealth, then you are denied access to television. Instead of freedom of speech, you have only the freedom to shut up. So let us be done with this phony charge that spending limits are somehow an attack on freedom of speech. As Justice Byron White points out, clear as a bell, in his dissent, both contribution limits and spending limits are neutral as to the content of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of the political speech in general. Mr. President, every Senator realizes that television advertising is the name of the game in modern American politics. In warfare, if you control the air, you control the battlefield. In politics, if you control the airwaves, you control the tenor and focus of a campaign. Probably 80 percent of campaign communications take place through the medium of television. And most of that TV airtime comes at a dear price. In South Carolina, you're talking between $1000 and $2,000 for 30 seconds of primetime advertising. In New York City, it's anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 for the same 30 seconds. The hard fact of life for a candidate is that if you're not on TV, you're not truly in the race. Wealthy challengers as well as incumbents flushed with money go directly to the TV studio. Those without personal wealth are sidetracked to the time-consuming pursuit of cash. The Buckley decision created a double bind. It upheld restrictions on campaign contributions, but struck down restrictions on how much candidates with deep pockets can spend. The Court ignored the practical reality that if my opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a race and I have $1 million, then I can effectively deprive him of his speech. By failing to respond to my advertising, my cash-poor opponent will appear unwilling to speak up in his own defense. Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in on this disparity in his dissent to Buckley. By striking down the limit on what a candidate can spend, Justice Marshall said, ``It would appear to follow that the candidate with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a significant head start.'' Indeed, Justice Marshall went further: He argued that by upholding the limitations on contributions but striking down limits on overall spending, the Court put an additional premium on a candidate's personal wealth. Justice Marshall was dead right and Ross Perot and Steve Forbes have proved it. Massive spending of their personal fortunes immediately made them contenders. Our urgent task is to right the injustice of Buckley versus Valeo by empowering Congress to place caps on Federal campaign spending. We are all painfully aware of the uncontrolled escalation of campaign spending. The average cost of a winning Senate race was $1.2 million in 1980, rising to $2.9 million in 1984, and skyrocketing to $3.1 million in 1986, $3.7 million in 1988, and up to $4.3 million this past year. To raise that kind of money, the average Senator must raise over $13,800 a week, every week of his or her 6-year term. Overall spending in congressional races increased from $446 million in 1990 to more than $724 million in 1994--almost a 70 percent increase in 4 short years. This obsession with money distracts us from the people's business. At worst, it corrupts and degrades the entire political process. Fundraisers used to be arranged so they didn't conflict with the Senate schedule; nowadays, the Senate schedule is regularly shifted to accommodate fundraisers. I have run for statewide office 16 times in South Carolina. You establish a certain campaign routine, say, shaking hands at a mill shift in Greer, visiting a big country store outside of Belton, and so on. Over the years, they look for you and expect you to come around. But in recent years, those mill visits and dropping by the country store have become a casualty of the system. There is very little time for them. We're out chasing dollars. During my 1986 reelection campaign, I found myself raising money to get on TV to raise money to get on TV to raise money to get on TV. It's a vicious cycle. After the election, I held a series of town meetings across the State. Friends asked, ``Why are you doing these town meetings: You just got elected. You've got 6 years.'' To which I answered, ``I'm doing it because it's my first chance to really get out and meet with the people who elected me. I didn't get much of a chance during the campaign. I was too busy chasing bucks.'' I had a similar experience in 1992. I remember Senator Richard Russell saying: ``They give you a 6-year term in this U.S. Senate: 2 years to be a statesman, the next 2 years to be a politician, and the last 2 years to be a demagogue.'' Regrettably, we are no longer afforded even 2 years as statesmen. We proceed straight to politics and demagoguery right after the election because of the imperatives of raising money. My proposed constitutional amendment would change all this. Unfortunately, Senate procedure prevents me from offering my amendment to this bill, but, hopefully tomorrow when we see yet another attempt to reform our campaign spending laws fail, we will realize a constitutional amendment is the only viable solution. It would empower Congress to impose reasonable spending limits on Federal campaigns. For instance, we could impose a limit of, say, $800,000 per Senate candidate in a small State like South Carolina--a far cry from the millions spent by my opponent and me in 1992. And bear in mind that direct expenditures account for only a portion of total spending. For instance, my 1992 opponent's direct expenditures were supplemented by hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures by independent organizations and by the State and local Republican Party. When you total up spending from all sources, my challenger and I spent roughly the same amount in 1992. And incidentally, Mr. President, let's be done with the canard that spending limits would be a boon to incumbents, who supposedly already have name recognition and standing with the public and therefore begin with a built-in advantage over challengers. Nonsense. I hardly need to remind my Senate colleagues of the high rate of mortality in upper Chamber elections. And as to the alleged invulnerability of incumbents in the House, I would simply note that well over 50 percent of the House membership has been replaced since the 1990 elections. I can tell you from experience that any advantages of incumbency are more than counterbalanced by the obvious disadvantages of incumbency, specifically the disadvantage of defending hundreds of controversial votes in Congress. I also agree with University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, who has suggested a doctrine of sufficiency with regard to campaign spending. Professor Sabato puts it this way: ``While challengers tend to be underfunded, they can compete effectively if they are capable and have sufficient money to present themselves and their messages.'' Moreover, Mr. President, I submit that once we have overall spending limits, it will matter little whether a candidate gets money from industry groups, or from PAC's, or from individuals. It is still a reasonable--``sufficient,'' to use Professor Sabato's term--amount any way you cut it. Spending will be under control, and we will be able to account for every dollar going out. On the issue of PAC's, Mr. President, let me say that I have never believed that PAC's per se are an evil in the current system. On the contrary, PAC's are a very healthy instrumentality of politics. PAC's have brought people into the political process: nurses, educators, small business people, senior citizens, unionists, you name it. They permit people of modest means and limited individual influence to band together with others of mutual interest so their message is heard and known. For years we have encouraged these people to get involved, to participate. Yet now that they are participating, we turn around and say, ``Oh, no, your influence is corrupting, your money is tainted.'' This is wrong. The evil to be corrected is not the abundance of participation but the superabundance of money. The culprit is runaway campaign spending. To a distressing degree, elections are determined not in the political marketplace but in the financial marketplace. Our elections are supposed to be contests of ideas, but too often they degenerate into megadollar derbies, paper chases through the board rooms of corporations, and special interests. Mr. President, I repeat, campaign spending must be brought under control. The constitutional amendment I have proposed would permit Congress to impose fair, responsible, workable limits on Federal campaign expenditures. Such a reform would have four important impacts. First, it would end the mindless pursuits of ever-fatter campaign war chests. Second, it would free candidates from their current obsession with fundraising and allow them to focus more on issues and ideas; once elected to office, we wouldn't have to spend 20 percent of our time raising money to keep our seats. Third, it would curb the influence of special interests. And fourth, it would create a more level playing field for our Federal campaigns--a competitive environment where personal wealth does not give candidates an insurmountable advantage. Finally, Mr. President, a word about the advantages of the amend-the- Constitution approach that I propose. Recent history amply demonstrates the practicality and viability of this constitutional route. Certainly, it is not coincidence that all five of the last six recent amendments to the Constitution have dealt with Federal election issues. In elections, the process drives and shapes the end result. Election laws can skew election results, whether you're talking about a poll tax depriving minorities of their right to vote, or the absence of campaign spending limits giving an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates. These are profound issues which go to the heart of our democracy, and it is entirely appropriate that they be addressed through a constitutional amendment. And let's not be distracted by the argument that the amend-the- Constitution approach will take too long. Take too long? We have been dithering on this campaign finance issue since the early 1970's, and we haven't advanced the ball a single yard. It has been a quarter of a century, and no legislative solution has done the job. Except for the 27th amendment, the last five constitutional amendments took an average of 17 months to be adopted. There is no reason why we cannot pass this joint resolution, submit it to the States for a vote, and ratify the amendment in time for it to govern the 1998 election. Indeed, the amend-the-Constitution approach could prove more expeditious than the alternative legislative approach. Bear in mind that the various public financing bills that have been proposed would all be vulnerable to a Presidential veto. In contrast, this joint resolution, once passed by the Congress, goes directly to the States for ratification. Once ratified, it becomes the law of the land, and it is not subject to veto or Supreme Court challenge. And, by the way, I reject the argument that if we were to pass and ratify this amendment, Democrats and Republicans would be unable to hammer out a mutually acceptable formula of campaign expenditure limits. A Democratic Congress and Republican President did exactly that in 1974, and we can certainly do it again. Mr. President, this amendment will address the campaign finance mess directly, decisively, and with finality. The Supreme Court has chosen to ignore the overwhelming importance of media advertising in today's campaigns. In the Buckley decision, it prescribed a bogus if-you-have- the-money-you-can-talk version of free speech. In its place, I urge the Congress to move beyond these acrobatic attempts at legislating around the Buckley decision. As we have all seen, no matter how sincere, these plans are doomed to fail. The solution rests in fixing the Buckley decision. Unfortunately, today we are barred procedurally from getting to take such a vote. It is my hope that before this Congress is out, the majority leader will provide us with an opportunity to vote on my amendment--it is the only solution. Mr. President, this is a significant reference, and it has been prepared for me with respect to the substituting, or actually amending, a simple bill by a constitutional amendment. The Parliamentarian says: The most significant question addressed here is whether the form for proposing a constitutional amendment is prescribed. Article V of the Constitution provides that Congress may, upon a two-thirds vote in each House, propose amendments to the Constitution, subject to ratification by three-fourths of the States. In the alternative, Congress may, upon application of two-thirds of the States, call a convention to consider proposed amendments. Neither the Constitution nor the Standing Rules of the Senate specify the form that the proposal should take. The vast majority of measures proposing amendments to the Constitution introduced in either House of the Congress have been in the form of a joint resolution. A report prepared by the Congressional Research Service, or reference service of the Library of Congress, in 1985, which built upon two earlier compilations of this material states that 9,994 proposals to amend the Constitution had been introduced since 1789 through the 98th Congress (report number 8536, page 3). Of these, only the following 6 have been determined to be in a form other than a joint resolution: S. 2 (December 4, 1889); S. 3000 (January 5, 1916); S. Con. Res. 4 (January 9, 1924); H.R. 9468 (February 17, 1926); S. 199 (January 4, 1935); S. 1020 (April 20, 1981). This enormous weight of practice has, however, never resulted in a Senate precedent. To the contrary, in the only Senate precedent on this point, Vice President Barkley stated, in response to a related point of order: ``On the question of whether an amendment to the Constitution must be submitted in the form of a joint resolution, or in the form of a bill, the only requirement of the Constitution is that the question shall be submitted by a two-thirds vote. It does not require that it be done by joint resolution. It may be done in the form of a bill (January 25, 1950, Congressional Record, page 872, 8lst Congress, second session). On May 9, 1962, in response to an inquiry, the chair implied that a constitutional amendment could be proposed as a substitute for a House private relief bill. Therefore, no point of order would lie against a bill which proposed to amend the Constitution.'' I thank the distinguished Chair and my colleagues for their indulgence. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a man from my home State who, in his work and his life, set an example for us all. Clyde M. Dangerfield died on June 19 at the age of 81. He served 35 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, and was responsible for improving the lives of citizens all over Charleston County. His concern, persistence, and integrity made him one of the finest public servants South Carolina has known. He was a good friend, a credit to his county, and I can say, without exaggeration, that the State is a better place because of him. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record two articles from Clyde Dangerfield's local paper, the Post and Courier. The articles follow: [From the Post and Courier, June 22, 1996] Clyde M. Dangerfield When Clyde M. Dangerfield retired from the House of Representatives in 1988, he was number one in seniority. It had been 35 years since he first was appointed to fill a vacancy in the Charleston County Legislative Delegation and had gone on to win election 17 times. While his 24-year chairmanship of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee set a longevity record, his chief interest was the area's transportation system. Before his death this week, he lived to see his major dreams realized. Relatively early in his public career, he was named chairman of the Charleston County Legislative Delegation's Roads and Bridges Committee. It became his prime focus and highway improvements his chief cause. The scope of his work was expanded when highway funding became keyed to long-range regional transportation planning. Mr. Dangerfield was named chairman of the Charleston Area Transportation Study (CHATS) Policy Committee from its inception in the late 1960s until he retired. His career spanned major changes in the South Carolina political landscape, from the days when lawmakers were elected countywide and Democrats were the only elected officials, to the advent of the two-party system and single- member election districts. A long-time resident of the Isle of Palms, his East Cooper area had become a Republican stronghold before he stepped aside. Unlike many of his colleagues who switched parties, he remained a Democrat and withstood a strong Republican Challenge before he retired. Herbert U. Fielding credits Mr. Dangerfield with being part of a coalition that helped him become, in 1970, the first black legislator from Charleston since Reconstruction. After that victory he remembers learning the legislative ropes from Mr. Dangerfield in the rides back and forth to Columbia. ``He taught most of us--all of us--me in particular.'' Mr. Fielding also noted that Mr. Dangerfield never sought the political center stage. In fact, Mr. Fielding remembered that Mr. Dangerfield ``very seldom took the podium in the House--he'd push me up.'' But few knew better than Mr. Dangerfield how to get things done. Every member of the delegation who served with Mr. Dangerfield can tell stories of being taken from one end of the county to the other to check on requests for road repavings, particularly in the days when county lawmakers had the last word on such local requests. But he never lost sight of the larger projects, particularly the James Island Bridge and the Isle of Palms Connector, which were the source of much delay and frustration. The ribbons were cut on both, and the latter named in his honor several years before his death. It was Clyde Dangerfield's ability to work behind the scenes and his persistence that were key to his success, according to Robert B. Scarborough, the former highway commissioner and legislator who was his closest ally. He can recall more than one project now in place because Clyde Dangerfield refused to give up. None is more notable than the $38 million, state-of-the- art, fixed-span bridge that bears his name and links the East Cooper island communities to the mainland. It took Hurricane Hugo to convince some island residents of the danger of relying solely on one means of exit off the islands. When the Clyde M. Dangerfield Bridge was dedicated, Isle of Palms Mayor Carmen Bunch was quoted as saying, ``This opens a new avenue to us all. We will never be kept from our homes again.'' That is only one of many debts of gratitude this community owes to Clyde M. Dangerfield's determined leadership.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have been so frustrated in trying to get the truth out. I am not amazed that colleagues on the floor differ with my views on a tax cut, but my frustration has been with the media's coverage of this issue. When I find the truth I want to include it in the Record, and this is not only a very, very good analysis of the false promise of a tax cut, but also outstanding advice for our distinguished friend, Senator Dole. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point an article in the Wall Street Journal of June 6 entitled, ``A Tax Cut Trap,'' by the distinguished journalist Albert R. Hunt.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President I ask to be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from Washington, who I have the privilege of serving with not only on the Budget Committee but on the Commerce Committee, and for whom I have the greatest respect, says that what we are hearing now is nothing but lip service from people who do not want to do anything. People who say, ``Not this way, not that way.'' The truth of the matter is, Mr. President, he knows otherwise. This particular Senator, his colleague, voted for a balanced budget in 1968, offered a freeze that they still refer to as the ``Fritz freeze,'' and coauthored Gramm-Rudman-Hollings with cuts across the board. We passed that, got President Reagan to sign it. We followed that up in the Budget Committee with a bipartisan proposal to increase taxes because we found out that you could not choose this way or that way, but rather needed all of the above. We needed to freeze spending, we needed to make cuts, we had to withhold new programs, and we had to increase taxes in order to get a balanced budget. That brings me to the point. Do not come here and blame the President, saying that he has put off the tough decisions until after the next election. In December 1994 the leaders of the new Republican majority appeared on ``Meet the Press'' and said the President was irrelevant, they didn't care what he said. But as this conference report lays bare, the Republicans have their sights set on the White House in 1996. That is why almost two-thirds of the tough choices under their plan are deferred until the Presidential election in the year 2000. So the 7 year, ``do nothing in two Presidential elections'' approach was what the contract crowd proposed. That was the arrogance of the whole thing. This debate is not about President Clinton. In 1993, he proposed a budget that did something about deficits--the only President that has reduced the deficit in the past 30 years. He cut the deficit $500 billion. He taxed Social Security and gasoline. He cut Medicare $57 billion. And he did it without a single Republican vote. The unmitigated gall of those who will stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and say the President is tricky or the President backloads or the President does not care about deficits. There ought to be ashes in their mouths. They are the ones that caused this fiscal cancer. President Clinton has moved us in the right direction. We are trying to get together and get something done. But to come and call this a balanced budget, where their own document shows that they have a deficit of $103.8 billion in the year 2002, is a pure sham. It is all politics. It is sordid legislation they are bringing up here in the months before the election. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, what they have in mind is to split up the reconciliation bill. To use the process for political purposes in sending the President a legislation that combines Medicaid and welfare reforms to pay for tax cuts. Even the casual observer should be able to see what's going on. The Medicaid cuts will have to be vetoed by the President because they take away the fundamental protection that we give children in the United States of America. Even the Governors do not want to do that. Then it comes down to September and last of three bills that they will call a reconciliation bill. And in the heat of a national presidential campaign, they will come forward with the political gift of a tax cut. But a tax cut for wealthy corporations, or for the poor, or for the rich, or for the middle class, or for anybody is sheer nonsense. We are running deficits right now, according to this conference report that we are going to vote on. I started to say, they know no shame. But I have to amend that comment for the simple reason that the House Members know some shame. I say that because somebody over there has held the budget up that we were going to--bam, bam--put through the House, put through the Senate, and finish this afternoon. The reason we do not have it this afternoon--it increases deficits. Under this conference report, for the year 2002, the Government will run, under a best case scenario, a deficit of $103.8 billion. In sum, Mr. President, we do not have the luxury of revenues to cut. We cannot go in two different directions at once, but that is exactly the road that this conference report takes us down.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the explanation of the conferees has come to my attention. It is a joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on this particular conference report, and on pages 32 and 33, starting at the bottom of page 32, it reads: The first use of reconciliation was for legislation that reduced revenues. In 1975, the applicable budget resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 466, provided an instruction to both Ways and Means and Finance to report legislation decreasing revenues. Notwithstanding the fact that the authors of this 1974 Budget Act were neutral as to the policy objectives of reconciliation, since 1975, reconciliation and reconciliation legislation has been used to reduce the deficit. The cited conferees notes while this resolution includes a reconciliation instruction to reduce revenues, the sum of the instructions would not only reduce the deficit but would result in a balanced budget by the year 2002. On the last point, of course, Mr. President, we only have to turn, once again to the facts. This is almost getting to be an exercise in futility. Somehow this is the only place in America where the truth cannot be recognized, even when they print it for you in black and white. I refer specifically to the concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 1997. At the top of page 4, you will see where they have listed deficits for the purpose of the enforcement of this resolution. ``The amounts of the deficits are as follows,'' and it lists fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and for the fiscal year 2002, where the distinguished conferees, and particularly the chairman of the Budget Committee, is using the expression ``balanced budget,'' his own document, for fiscal year 2002, shows a deficit of $103,845,000,000. Reading further down the page to section 102 on page 4, you will find that in the fiscal year 2002, the amount of the increase in the public debt, subject to limitations, are for that year $130 billion. So how do you balance the budget by the year 2002, and yet you have to go out and borrow $130 billion? My point here is to change this record with respect to reconciliation, because the truth, as stated by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico at that particular time--is shown here on page S. 15351 of the Congressional Record of the U.S. Senate dated December 3, 1980--not 1975. And I read the words of the distinguished chairman, now chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici of New Mexico: I think it is fitting that that last event signifies the possibility of a new beginning because, as a matter of fact, this is the first time in the history of our country that we will send a bill to the President that is called a reconciliation bill, and that means that some of the laws of this country have been reconciled with the budget. That means that they have been changed so that they come more into sync or more harmonious with a budget that is left unchanged. That is what reconciliation means. With all the years that our distinguished Republican leader, Senator Bellmon, has spent patiently working with the institution to bring some real support for this process into fiscal restraint reality, I think it is at least reaching fruition when we have a reconciliation law that will go to the President. I hope after the Senate votes today I commend him for that. Also obviously, it is an extremely fitting event for Senator Hollings. He did not have the privilege of being chairman of the committee for very long, but he worked on the committee for years, and I think he must feel very good today knowing that under his leadership, this first reconciliation act will become a reality. That is the record made by the now chairman of the Budget Committee in 1980 and not 5 years previous thereto in 1975. Specifically, Mr. President, in 1975, and I read from page 40297, dated December 12, 1975: Mr. Mansfield. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, I have a few announcements. At 12 o'clock today, we will be proceed to the consideration of the conference report, of the defense appropriations conference report. After that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the tax bill, H.R. 5559 that is to be laid before the Senate and be the pending business. The majority leader called it a tax bill. A wrangle ensued. My good and very clever friend Senator Long, the former distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, was trying to limit debate and limit amendments. He very liberally referred to it as a reconciliation bill, but it was not a reconciliation. It was a tax bill. At that particular time, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Muskie, was momentarily misled trying to back Senator Long. But if you will read the Record, they finally ended up, Mr. President, by calling it a tax bill and entering into a unanimous-consent agreement requiring that all amendments be germane except for one nongermane amendment to be offered by Senator Hartke, the then-Senator from Indiana. The Record is clear that the bill was a tax bill despite the erroneous use of the word ``reconciliation.'' Having worked on that budget, having been a part of the process during the 1970's, having helped Senator Muskie on budget conferences, we know that the first reconciliation bill in the history of the United States was in December 1980. That is not only supported by the statements made by the Senator from New Mexico, but also by the statements made by our House colleagues. I could refer to what Congressman Dick Bolling called it, Congressman Latta, Congressman Panetta, and others as well. So the precedent relied upon by the Parliamentarian which we had to appeal quite simply misrepresents what actually happened. I hope that it will not have any standing whatsoever in this body because when they look at the facts, the truth will have out that reconciliation throughout its history has always been used as a budgetary tool to reduce the deficit, not increase the deficit. My point is, Mr. President, that under this reconciliation bill, the Republicans have perverted the process in order to cut taxes somewhere between $122 and $180 billion. It is very difficult to estimate it at this particular point. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 2 more minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Quickly, Mr. President, because the hour of 3:30 is arriving, the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from South Carolina do not have a differing view with respect to the Finance Committee bringing out a tax reduction bill. There is no question they can do that, subject to the instructions, particularly back in 1975 where we had several budget resolutions. But not the reconciliation process, that is exactly what it was and that is what they stated. Mr. Mansfield said, ``I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of the tax bill, H.R. 5559'' on December 12. Then, on December 15, as the distinguished Senator referred, the assistant legislative clerk read as follows: ``A bill, H.R. 1559, to make changes in certain income tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.'' However, it was clearly obvious from the full Record, and we can make that Record here as a part of this Record if we wish, that Senator Long was trying to limit debate and not have the Hartke amendments, which were not germane. And in that discourse, even though Mr. Long had called it reconciliation, the chairman said, and I quote Mr. Hartke: The chairman of the Finance Committee can make a statement but that does not make it the situation. The Committee on Finance has not acted upon this being a reconciliation bill. There is no record of its being a reconciliation bill. There is no mention of it in the report as being a reconciliation bill. Therefore, I think the point of order would not be well taken in regard to any amendment because it is not a reconciliation bill. This is a tax reduction bill. And finally, Senator Muskie, the chairman, and the rest of them, after a long debate, including Senator Dole who was on Finance and supporting the position taken by Senator Hartke, allowed the Hartke amendments. And somewhat in defeat, when he finally was there, on December 15, Mr. Muskie said, ``I wonder if I might not yield the floor. I think I have made whatever contribution I can with discussions of the problem.'' And he yielded to the whole thing whereby they brought the amendment up. Now, Mr. President, I would hope the Senator from New Mexico would agree with his own words. We know Mr. Ullman, I have here; Mr. Panetta, Mr. Bellmon, Mr. Regula, Mr. Bolling and the numerous Senators on this side, but particularly Senator Domenici. I quote, on December 3, 1980, where 5 years hence, and I quote him: And also obviously it is an extremely fitting event for Senator Hollings. He did not have the privilege of being chairman of this committee for very long, but he worked on the committee for years and I think that he must feel very good today, knowing that under his leadership this first reconciliation act will become a reality. It was the first. And all reconciliation, as Mr. Pickle from Texas and everyone else pointed out--reconciliation was the process to bring the deficits down, bring the spending down into a particular budget target, not to increase deficits with tax cuts. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Bill Dauster, dated May 30, in Roll Call entitled ``The Day the Senate Died: Budget Measure Weakens Minority'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill aimed at providing a mechanism for Federal law enforcement to combat the most recent scourge to sweep across the Southeast. I am talking about the burnings of black churches that have been making such dramatic headlines lately. The burning of houses of worship have been taking place for the past 5 or 6 years, but this particular outbreak of fires has all the characteristics of an epidemic. Not since the sixties have I been witness to such blatant intolerance and hatred, such utterly despicable acts of American citizens against their fellow Americans as has I have seen over these past few weeks. I turn on the news and see a burning church, a haunting image with horrific symbolic and practical implications, and I say this must stop. Not just this specific rash of crime, but the whole trend toward violence and intolerance in our society. We as Americans have fought too hard to let racial or religious intolerance once again pollute our democracy. This morning I accompanied President Clinton as he traveled to South Carolina. I welcome his strong presence in the midst of this unsettling trend, and moreover I welcome the message he brought to my home State. This country is stronger than the forces of hatred that would divide us. We will rebuild, and we will punish those responsible for these episodes of destruction. To fight against the forces of divisiveness, we must pull together as a community. In the South, that means rebuilding, it means congregations of churches all over America picking a Sunday and dedicating their collections to rebuild these burned churches. Here in the Government, in means using every means within our power to make sure that this never happens again. As of this moment, we don't have legislation that adequately addresses this brand of criminal behavior. The investigations by Federal authorities, and their ability to prosecute these cases have been limited by the current law. The bill I propose will remove the impediments to bringing Federal cases, and give the Attorney General an effective, and necessary weapon with which to combat these crimes. Section 247 of title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime to damage religious property or to obstruct persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs. I propose to amend this by requiring only that the offense ``is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.'' Congress will be effectively granting jurisdiction over all conduct which may be reached under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. Additionally, the bill eliminates the $10,000 threshold for fire damages to grant Federal jurisdiction in cases where there is only minimal damage. This way, desecration or defacement of houses of worship can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 247. I urge the Senate to act quickly and adopt this provision. As I understand a similar measure is making its way through the House, the Senate should also act in an expeditious manner to ensure the Federal Government has the necessary authority to combat this tragic epidemic. More importantly, this country must come together, leave racial intolerance behind, and insure that we end this type of bigotry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill aimed at providing a mechanism for Federal law enforcement to combat the most recent scourge to sweep across the Southeast. I am talking about the burnings of black churches that have been making such dramatic headlines lately. The burning of houses of worship have been taking place for the past 5 or 6 years, but this particular outbreak of fires has all the characteristics of an epidemic. Not since the sixties have I been witness to such blatant intolerance and hatred, such utterly despicable acts of American citizens against their fellow Americans as has I have seen over these past few weeks. I turn on the news and see a burning church, a haunting image with horrific symbolic and practical implications, and I say this must stop. Not just this specific rash of crime, but the whole trend toward violence and intolerance in our society. We as Americans have fought too hard to let racial or religious intolerance once again pollute our democracy. This morning I accompanied President Clinton as he traveled to South Carolina. I welcome his strong presence in the midst of this unsettling trend, and moreover I welcome the message he brought to my home State. This country is stronger than the forces of hatred that would divide us. We will rebuild, and we will punish those responsible for these episodes of destruction. To fight against the forces of divisiveness, we must pull together as a community. In the South, that means rebuilding, it means congregations of churches all over America picking a Sunday and dedicating their collections to rebuild these burned churches. Here in the Government, in means using every means within our power to make sure that this never happens again. As of this moment, we don't have legislation that adequately addresses this brand of criminal behavior. The investigations by Federal authorities, and their ability to prosecute these cases have been limited by the current law. The bill I propose will remove the impediments to bringing Federal cases, and give the Attorney General an effective, and necessary weapon with which to combat these crimes. Section 247 of title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime to damage religious property or to obstruct persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs. I propose to amend this by requiring only that the offense ``is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.'' Congress will be effectively granting jurisdiction over all conduct which may be reached under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution. Additionally, the bill eliminates the $10,000 threshold for fire damages to grant Federal jurisdiction in cases where there is only minimal damage. This way, desecration or defacement of houses of worship can be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 247. I urge the Senate to act quickly and adopt this provision. As I understand a similar measure is making its way through the House, the Senate should also act in an expeditious manner to ensure the Federal Government has the necessary authority to combat this tragic epidemic. More importantly, this country must come together, leave racial intolerance behind, and insure that we end this type of bigotry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.