Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will read one sentence. The entire article is in the Record so we know there is no misuse of this particular instrument here: ``The biggest tax increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan.'' Now, Mr. President, we also have the statements from the other media. That statement was in the Washington Post on January 1 of last year. Everybody knows about that quote from the Wall Street Journal dated October 26, 1994: ``Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package is not the largest tax increase in history. The 1982 deficit reduction package of President Reagan and Senator Robert Dole in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993 adjusted dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy.'' That was in the Wall Street Journal, October 26, 1994. Further, from the Washington Post of February 1, 1995: ``The biggest tax increase in history did not occur in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The biggest tax increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan.'' Now, from the New York Times, November 3, 1995: ``It is not true that the $240 billion tax increase approved by Congress in 1993 at Mr. Clinton's behest is the largest in American history, When adjusted for inflation, the only way to make comparison for dollar amounts in different years, a tax increase engineered by Mr. Dole in 1982, when he was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was larger.'' That was the New York Times, November 3, 1995. That is the Senator from Kansas that we know and love. I voted, this Senator from South Carolina, with the Senator from Kansas back in 1968 when we had the last balanced budget. I voted against Reaganomics in 1981 and went along the legislation in 1982 because we could see the disaster coming; deficits were exploding, we needed more revenues, and the budget was getting entirely out of hand. Now, Mr. President, you cannot believe your ears. You cannot believe your ears. Having increased spending over the 15-year period, $250 billion more than we have taken in, on an average each year, we have run the national deficit--I do not need a chart; all you need is the facts--from less than $1 trillion. From the beginning of this Nation, in 1776 with the cost of the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the cost of all the wars, we still had not run up a debt of $1 trillion. I know we had Desert Storm, but the others are supposed to have paid for it. In a 15-year period, without the cost of a war, we have run amok. We have gone from less than $1 trillion to over $5 trillion. What is the interest cost? The interest cost now is estimated to be 353 billion bucks next year; that is the April 30 figure by the CBO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this table printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, that is the Senator from Kansas that we know and love. He was increasing taxes. He was cutting spending. He was getting rid of Federal employees, and right on down through his record as chairman of the Finance Committee--yes, we might as well bring it out categorically--he proposed the largest tax increase in the history of the U.S. Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed an article by Judy Mann, entitled ``Fiddling With the Numbers.'' [From the Washington Post] Fiddling With the Numbers (By Judy Mann) Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, the Republican meteor from New Jersey, had the unusual honor for a first-term governor of being asked to deliver her party's response to President Clinton's State of the Union message last week. And she delivered a whopper of what can most kindly be called a glaring inaccuracy. Sandwiched into her Republican sales pitch was the kind of line that does serious political damage: Clinton, she intoned, ``imposed the biggest tax increase in American history.'' And millions of Americans sat in front of their television sets, perhaps believing that Clinton and the Democrat- controlled Congress had done a real number on them. The trouble is that this poster lady for tax cuts was not letting any facts get in her way. But don't hold your breath waiting for the talk show hosts to set the record straight. The biggest tax increase in history did not occur in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The biggest tax increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan. Here is how the two compare, according to Bill Gale, a specialist on tax policy and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. The 1993 act raised taxes for the next 5 years by a gross total of $268 billion, but with the expansion of the earned income tax credit to more working poor families, the net increase comes to $240.4 billion in 1993. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, by comparison, increased taxes by a net of $217.5 billion over 5 years. Nominally, then, it is true that the 1993 tax bill was the biggest in history. But things don't work nominally. ``A dollar now is worth less than a dollar was back then, so that a tax increase of, say $10 billion in 1982 would be a tax increase of $15 billion now,'' says Gale. In fact, if you adjust for the 48 percent change in price level, the 1982 tax increase becomes a $325.6 billion increase in 1993 dollars. And that makes it the biggest tax increase in history by $85 billion. Moreover, says Gale, the population of the country increased, so that, on a per person basis, the 1993 tax increase is lower than the one in 1982, and the gross domestic product increased over the decade, which means that personal income rose. ``Once you adjust for price translation, it's not the biggest, and when you account for population and GDP, it gets even smaller.'' He raises another point that makes this whole business of tax policy just a bit more complex than the heroic tax slashers would have us believe. ``The question is whether [the 1993 tax increase] was a good idea or a bad idea, not whether it was the biggest tax increase. Suppose it was the biggest? I find it frustrating that the level of the debate about stuff like this as carried on by politicians is generally so low.'' So was it a good idea? ``We needed to reduce the deficit,'' he says, ``we still need to reduce the deficit. The bond market responded positively. Interest rates fell. There may be a longer term benefit in that it shows Congress and the president are capable of cutting the deficit even without a balanced budget amendment.'' Other long-term benefits, he says, are that ``more capital is freed up for private investment, and ultimately that can result in more productive and highly paid workers.'' How bad was the hit for those few who did have to pay more taxes? One tax attorney says that his increased taxes were more than offset by savings he was able to generate by refinancing the mortgage on his house at the lower interest rates we've had as a result. The 1993 tax increase did include a 4.3-cent-a-gallon rise in gasoline tax, which hits the middle class. But most of us did not have to endure an income tax increase. In 1992, the top tax rate was 31 percent of the taxable income over $51,900 for single taxpayers and $86,500 for married couples filing jointly. Two new tax brackets were added in 1993: 36 percent for singles with taxable incomes over $115,000 and married couples with incomes over $140,000; and 39.6 percent for singles and married couples with taxable incomes over $250,000. Not exactly your working poor or even your average family. The rising GOP stars are finding out that when they say or do something stupid or mendacious, folks notice. The jury ought to be out on Whitman's performance as governor until we see the effects of supply side economics on New Jersey. But in her first nationally televised performance as a spokeswoman for her party, she should have known better than to give the country only half the story. In the process, she left a lot to be desired in one quality Americans are looking for in politicians: honesty.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I included that to show how you could do it, how many cuts would be necessary in discretionary spending, with taxes and without taxes at that particular time. I did that because I had heard my colleagues on national TV. On ``Meet the Press,'' I heard the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, on the House side Mr. Kasich, and others say they are going to present a balanced budget. I got together with the best of minds on the Budget Committee, the staff. We worked all through the month of January. Then we just put it into the Record that we had tried. I should note that the spending cuts I included were rather harsh --harsh, harsh. I was not prepared to vote for those unless we got a consensus to go along and really do the job. But let me not get off my major point here with respect to this resolution. The reason they will not exclude Social Security trust funds and pick up the votes on this side--and they could pick up easily 5 and probably 10 votes, and they know it--is that if they include the exclusion, they will rob their plan of some $600 billion over the 6- to 7-year period. You know, this is all about the Presidential election. I mean, after all, why have 7 years? It gets us by the election here in November and it gets us by the November election in the year 2000. So anytime you can get past two Presidential elections--and there were high hopes at one time that they were going to have the White House--you would not have any real responsibility to do anything under the constitutional amendment until after you were elected and reelected. They certainly did not want to go along, even though they could get the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, for which the Senator from South Carolina has previously voted. I do not mind a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but the reason they do not call up a balanced budget amendment that protects Social Security is because they know that they could not then vote for the fraud that is in their recent budget proposal. I have categorically made this statement again and again for the past 15 years. No real balanced budget has been submitted in that 15-year period, no balanced budget has been submitted by this Congress or the President in the last 15 years. And to have the unmitigated gall to get up here and bring charts to the crowd--I do not know how long the distinguished Senator from Utah has been in the U.S. Senate, but he has been here a long time. I do not know how long the Senator from Kansas has been here, our distinguished majority leader, but I know he voted with us in 1968 when we balanced the budget. I think the exact date was some time in June 1968. He was in the House and I was in the Senate. June 20, 1968, was the date of the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 15414 imposing--listen to this, Mr. President, hear ye, all ears take heed--imposing a 10-percent surcharge on personal and corporate income taxes. It required the Federal Government to cut fiscal 1969 expenditures by $6 billion, and to reduce new obligational authority by $10 billion. It required a reduction in the number of Federal employees, extending certain existing excise taxes, accelerating payments of corporation taxes, revising or extending the effective date of certain welfare and medical assistance laws, and including provisions on various other subjects adopted by a vote in the House of Representatives of 268-150. It shows the distinguished Senator from Kansas voting ``aye.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the voting record be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I find it hard to believe my ears. What this really involves is the determined effort by the proponents of Senate Joint Resolution 1 to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment that devastates Social Security over the next 7 years by over $600 billion. Let me read section 7 of the joint resolution: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government, except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government, except for those for repayment of debt principal. We suggested when this came up last year, and again earlier this year, that we were readily prepared to vote for a balanced budget amendment--we are waiting on the majority leader, of course, to make his motion to reconsider--if we add to the existing exclusion in section 7 that ignores those funds derived from borrowing and similarly exclude the Social Security trust fund surpluses. The distinguished Senator from Utah says, ``Oh, it's so fine, we're going to finally lock it in,'' and he shows a chart with a horrendous debt. He says, ``Now we're going to finally really fix it so we can balance the budget.'' Then in the same breath, he says that ``we're going to protect Social Security.'' Social Security has long been protected. I intend to talk a little later about the history of our efforts to save it in 1983 with the National Commission on Social Security Reform on which the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole of Kansas, served. But more to the point at hand: I made a motion as a member of the Budget Committee on July 10, 1990, that we put in a provision for Social Security protection. The reason being that we were beginning to rob the Social Security trust fund. When the National Commission on Social Security Reform, the Greenspan commission, issued its report in 1983, they mandated that Social Security would be put off-budget in 1992. But when we saw what was really going on, I worked in bipartisan fashion with Senator Heinz and put into the law section 13301, signed on November 5, 1990, by President George Bush, which reads as follows: Exclusion of Social Security from all budgets. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund, the Federal Disability Insurance trust fund, shall not be counted as new budget authority outlays, receipts or deficit or surplus for purposes of the budget of the U.S. Government as submitted by the President, two, the congressional budget or, three, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Exclusion of Social Security from the congressional budget, section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, by adding at the end the following: ``The concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and revenue totals of the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Program established under title II of the Social Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals required by this subsection or in any other surplus or deficit totals required by this title.'' That is the law of the land. The Congressional Research Service and all others reading it who understand the English language know that section 7 of House Joint Resolution 1 repeals that law. They dutifully praise the Senator from Illinois who stood for long periods of time here with me trying to balance the budget. He has come to me and other Senators on this side of the aisle and said, ``Let's see if we can't compromise.'' I replied, ``I don't mind being realistic, if you want to extend the date or any other wording.'' But Social Security has to be protected. We demonstrated the seriousness of our convictions with Senator Dole's vote and Senator Hollings' vote, just last year. Mr. President, just November of last year, on the 16th of November, I put an forth an amendment: Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint resolution, the 7-year balanced budget passed by the Congress to the President shall not include the use of Social Security trust funds to reflect a balanced budget. In other words, that put the Congress on record against any kind of unified budget that included Social Security trust funds. That was passed with Senator Dole's and Senator Hollings' vote, 97-2, and in the original instance, back 5 years ago, in 1990, it was 98-2. Yes, we talk about protecting Social Security, but in this constitutional amendment, we avoid that particular protection that is already in the law. Why are they so adamant to do so? Because they cannot present a balanced budget, Mr. President, over that 7-year period without using Social Security trust funds and without other smoke and mirrors. I have put it into the Record many a time. I will put it in again and show you the particular budget that I submitted. And I said that if you could give me a 7-year balanced budget without an increase in taxes, a realistic budget without the smoke and mirrors, I would jump off the Capitol dome. I tried to convince them. They all said, ``Well, Hollings--what's he for?'' I will put it in here right now in this Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Truth-in-Budgeting Act schedules, dated January 23, 1995, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan be recognized at 3:30 p.m. today to use whatever time he utilizes under the time he controls and that I be recognized after that.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Exon be recognized at 1 p.m. today.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. I thank the distinguished Senator. Let's make the record on the hot fudge sundae. At the present time, the Dole agenda--and I repeat this and I got into it this morning--was the repeal of the 4.3-cent gas tax. That is $30 billion. The missile defense system is $60 billion. The across-the- board tax cuts, $600 billion. So that is what we are up against; $690 billion that is in the Presidential campaign and, whoopee, ``I have to get elected because I can cut the revenues another $690 billion. And, incidentally, I get another $600 billion from the Social Security trust fund.'' When the smoke has cleared, we are down well over a trillion bucks. What a charade. What a fraud. How can anybody be serious and stand up here? But they all have the same singsong. Let me go quickly, because we are going to run out of time. They all come in here with the same stock phrases--Thomas Jefferson, children and grandchildren, first balanced budget in 30 years, largest tax increase in history. The largest tax increase in history, one more time--I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``Fiddling with the Numbers,'' by Judy Mann.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to have a staff made up of people who are not only excellent at what they do, but are bright, interesting, and a pleasure to be around. Among them is a young man by the name of Moses Boyd, whose intelligence, determination and inimitable style have been a longtime asset to my office. Apparently, being hardworking and capable are traits that run in his family. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a column that Moses wrote as a tribute to a role model of his. She sounds like an incredible woman.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Parliamentary inquiry. Did we adopt the amendment?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent it be agreed to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution offered by my friend from Arizona encourages the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to move forward expeditiously on a number of pending proceedings. In doing so, would the Senator from Arizona agree that section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, is the provision of law that authorizes the FCC's use of auctions as a licensing procedure?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Arizona and I are agreed substantially with his sense-of-the- Senate resolution. In every one of the auctions, Mr. President, what we do on them is not to maximize the revenues but to protect the public interest. We want to increase the efficiency and enhance the competition. So I welcome this particular sense-of-the-Senate resolution. But I have to add, of course, the fundamental of the public interest, which I am sure the Senator from Arizona is interested in, is stipulated in the Communications Act of 1934, section 309, and now in the new Telecommunications Act it is also to be adhered to. So I move the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Would the Senator further agree that the FCC should follow the statute in conducting auctions?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we have a lot to be proud of in our country and we have many great role models. One role model, who recently visited my home state and spoke to the graduates of the University of South Carolina, is Janet Reno. Janet Reno is our country's first female Attorney General and has excelled in the role. She is a dedicated, top-flight public servant. And indeed, that was also her reputation in Florida, where President Clinton plucked her in 1993 from her role as the State's attorney for Dade County. Janet Reno was known in Dade County as a tough, front-line crime fighter and she devoted herself to making communities safer, keeping children out of trouble, reducing domestic violence and helping families. She also targeted career criminals, dangerous offenders and drug traffickers, promising strict and certain sentences that put them away and kept them away. Janet Reno grew up in Florida and worked her way through Cornell University. She wanted to pursue a law degree but was told that ``woman didn't become lawyers.'' She ignored the advice and became one of only 16 women in a class of 565 students to enroll in Harvard Law School in 1960. When she graduated, people said, ``No one will hire a woman lawyer.'' She proved them wrong, of course. Janet Reno was and is a trail-blazer. In her speech to the USC graduates, Janet Reno talked about the frustrations that faced her and her predecessors as Attorney General. She said: There is no vaccination for crime, as there is for polio. The only thing we have is hard work, seven days a week, parents raising children right, police walking the beat every single night, and prosecutors putting criminals behind bars, one by one. Our problems are complex and the answers rarely simple. Janet Reno encouraged the graduates avoid the deadly sins of our public life: extremism, cynicism and defeatism. Her advice is sound and I think we could all benefit from it. I ask that her address be printed in the Record. The address follows: Spring Commencement Address by U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno I am honored to share this day with you. It is so wonderful to look out to see so many who have worked so hard to obtain their diploma today. I especially want to say hello to my fellow chemistry majors. In 1960, I earned my chemistry degree from Cornell University. So, to you parents who worry that your graduating sons and daughters still lack a clear career goal, I suggest, give them a little more time; you never know what might happen. Since my graduation in 1960, so many things in America have changed for the better. In 1960, the Iron Curtain divided the world between freedom and dictatorship. Just two weeks ago I walked the streets of Budapest along side the free people of Hungary, and I talked with Western Europeans and Eastern Europeans alike about our common fight against crime. In 1960, even after the Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation, much of America was still divided into two nations, black and white. But in the civil rights efforts that soon followed, our nation kept the promises the founding fathers made and finally made equality the law of the land. In 1960 when I graduated from college, people told me a woman couldn't go to law school, and when I graduated from law school, people told me law firms won't hire you. Thirty years later, no one ever told me I couldn't be Attorney General. You are graduating into an amazing era. In 1960, nobody had ever heard of the Internet, no one had been to the moon. The CAT scan was not invented until 1973. But even though our world is more safe and our country is more just and new technologies are changing our lives, nobody would say that we are a nation without serious, serious challenges. Many of these challenges seem so stubborn and unyielding, such as violent crime, homelessness, and poverty. Others seem complex and inscrutable, like the international economy and the spread of AIDS. And others just seem overwhelming, like the fear of terrorism or environmental catastrophe. But America is a nation of optimists and problem solvers. Each generation looks to its children to keep our society moving and to make life better. After the parties and the vacations and the graduate degrees yet to come, America will look to you for help. For no matter where you go and what you do, you can make a difference. That's what I would like to talk about today. For in these last 30 years, too many people of goodwill have looked at these very hard problems and started throwing up their hands and turning away. They are getting caught up in the three deadly sins of our public life: extremism, cynicism, and defeatism. The first great threat to our optimistic spirit is extremism, for it blinds us to the tough, tough choices we all confront when we wrestle with the difficult problems of today. The historian Arthur Schlesinger once observed that America's progress and freedom were fueled by what he called ``the vital center in American politics.'' He meant a place where men and women of reason and goodwill could meet regardless of their political party affiliation, a place to hash out their differences and debate the problems of the day. A lively debate to be sure, sometimes even unruly, but one carried out on common terms with respect for the other person. The vital center has always been a place where people might be divided in their approach to solving a problem, but where they were united, as Americans, in their determination to act reasonably and to see the virtue in other points of view. In short, the politics of the vital center means using democracy as a process of working together to find solutions that attack problems with progress. Slow sometimes, terribly slow and exhausting to be sure, but always in the American tradition of reforms that are not perfect, but take us one step forward, one important step forward. Today I fear many Americans are forgetting about the vital center. Too often in today's politics, on all sides, people are confronting tough problems and retreating to extremes and to simple solutions instead of embracing the complexity that problem solving always demands and that democracy requires. You may not like everything government does, I know I don't, but the alternative is not to throw up your hands or turn to violence. What we must do is to sit down together as reasonable people and make our government do what is right and stop doing what may be wrong-headed or wasteful. Extremism wants to sprint when the race is really a marathon. Extremism wants to escape the complexity of democracy and the staggering diversity of human nature, but it never can. Extremism argues that problems are easy to solve but if they were, we would have licked them a long, long time ago. As Attorney General, I deal with problems that frustrated previous Attorney Generals for years, such as crime, terrorism and domestic violence. There is no vaccination for crime, as there is for polio. The only thing we have is hard work seven days a week, parents raising children right, police walking the beat every single night, and prosecutors putting criminals behind bars, one by one. We're not a bumper sticker away from solving terrorism. We have to be eternally vigilant, close our borders to those who threaten us and work slowly and patiently for peace in the lands where foreign terrorists come from, just as we must fight the hatred and the paranoia that fuels domestic terrorism. There is no sound byte that can make domestic violence go away. We have to stop abusers one by one and let them know that there is never an excuse for hitting someone you love. We have to build shelters one at a time to give victims a safe place away from the abuse, and we have to help victims rebuild their lives slowly and steadily. The vital center knows that problems are complicated and that answers are rarely simple. I hope that in your lives you will choose the course of leadership, not partisanship. Think twice when someone has a simple answer. Remember that so many of our problems took decades to get where they are and that no amount of sloganeering can fix them overnight. And don't ever forget to listen. For I have learned so much when I have listened to the people with whom I have disagreed. Sometimes I have changed my mind. Sometimes I have changed theirs. The second great threat to our nation's optimistic spirit is cynicism. Maybe you have faced it already. The cynic knows so much about what is wrong and why it can't be fixed. He can tell you which baseball players strike out the most and why planes and stock markets crash. She can tell you which public figures were caught doing something wrong, why the current peace negotiations are doomed, and why so many marriages end in divorce. It may be a beautiful South Carolina day, but the cynic knows it is going to rain someday. Of course, cynicism never happens by itself, it always builds on genuine problems and disasters. Watergate and other scandals convinced millions of Americans that government was permanently broken and that everyone in public life was some sort of alien from ordinary American life, that they might as well have landed in a spaceship. In fact, you can look at any of our institutions and you can find a scandal, and cynics told you so. Sports heroes, police officers, business leaders, doctors, ministers, teachers and politicians--everyone can point to people in all walks of life who have fallen below society's standards. We can use a funny line to dismiss politicians or teachers or Wall Street bankers, but that's the easy way out and after we do, what's different? Nothing, except that fewer good people are willing to work to make our government better, care for the helpless amongst us, or build a business that puts its customers needs first. At the very least, if you're finding yourself falling prey to cynicism, consider its cousin, skepticism. At least the skeptic has an open mind. The skeptic sees all the same problems and asks all the same questions, but is willing to let the answer be good or bad. And if you are a recovering cynic, and you have made it back to skepticism, why not just take the final step and become an idealist in the best American tradition? And I don't mean for a minute that you should be naive. The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. talked about the need for all of us to have a tough mind and a tender heart. I can tell you that no one can come to Washington and ever hope to do well if she does not start the morning by asking tough questions and end the day getting real answers. This nation was founded by idealists with tough minds and with tender hearts, and they formed a government designed to check the worst in human nature just as they risked their lives to found a country that cherished freedom and liberty over oppression. They took the hard way, and they made a difference. A month ago, as the sun was setting before it rose again on Eastern morning, I was in Dover Delaware listening to President Clinton honor Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 32 other Americans who died in the plane crash in Bosnia. They were young and old, men and women, government workers and business leaders, but they were all there because they believed they could help a ravaged country heal from civil war. These 33 lives, said the President, show us the best of America. They are a stern rebuke to the cynicism that is all too familiar these days. He talked about how family after family told him how their loved ones were proud of their work and believed in what they were doing and believed they could make a difference. Finally, I want to talk to you about the brother of extremism and cynicism, defeatism. Not everyone faces hopelessness, but no one is far away from someone who does. It may be across town where a family can't afford to pay the rent, or take the child to the doctor because they don't have a job. It may be in the next classroom where a student is convinced that he will never succeed, that no one cares, and that street crime will be the only way out of a hard life. It might be next door where a wife or child faces terror every night at the hands of an abusive spouse or parent. You may never find yourself at the bottom of life's pit, and, if you do, I prey that you have the energy and courage to get up and out. But you may know someone who has fallen, someone who doesn't even want to try because he is sure it won't make a difference. I have been Attorney General now for three years, and my faith in the American people and their ability to deal with adversity has never been so strong. I have never been so sure that we can prevail against the causes of wrong in this world. I know we can defeat extremism and reclaim the vital center. I know we can defeat cynicism and seek what is good amidst all that is bad. I know we can defeat defeatism and teach those who have fallen to get up and to hope again. It won't be easy, and it will take a lot more than any speech could ever do, but I come here today because you are the future of this country. I know you have the energy. I know you have the commitment. I know you can make the choice to stand for what is right and good in this world. If you choose public service you will be choosing one of the most rewarding and fulfilling careers our society can offer. But whether you are running a business, or teaching a class, prosecuting criminals, or raising a family, you can make a difference. In another spring time, 33 years ago, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. sat in a Birmingham jail, exhausted from years of seeking justice for all. He was dispirited, and even some of his fellow ministers were saying he should back off and wait for progress to happen on its own. He must struggle to keep cynicism out of his every thought, and sitting in that jail cell day after day, with progress coming slowly or not at all, he had to wonder why any man had a right to hope. But Reverend King made his choice, he began writing until his words filled the margins of a secondhand newspaper. The power of his choice flowed out of a pen and into the conscious of America. Today as you prepare to make your choices in life, I would like to close with a few of those words from Dr. King's letter from that Birmingham jail: ``We must come to see that human progress never tolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of men willing to be co- workers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, and forever realize that the time is always ripe to do right.'' I hope and pray that you will make your choice the choice of standing for what is right and good in this world. Thank you, congratulations, good luck, and God bless you.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator. I read here: The biggest tax increase in history did not occur in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. The biggest tax increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan. So I hope they would at least respect the truth every now and again and quit referring to the 1993 reconciliation bill as the ``biggest tax increase.'' I happened to have voted for it. It is working. It has the deficit cut in half. In fact, the deficit dropped another $30 billion since last week. Finally, Mr. President, under this limited time on April 24, 1991, we put in a bill--``we'' being Senator Moynihan of New York, Senator Kasten of Wisconsin, and the Senator from South Carolina--we put in that bill to cut $190 billion in tax cuts for working Americans. The distinguished Senator from Texas voted against it. We said, let us put Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis. It amounted to $190 billion in tax cuts on working Americans. You can keep running him out with his charts, but I am going to run out with his record. He had a chance to vote for it, and he voted against it. So spare us this particular off-Broadway act that we have to watch every other day or so--the biggest tax increase, and working Americans, around the kitchen table, and who is in the wagon and who is pulling it. We are in the wagon. The Congress is in the wagon. The people outside are the ones pulling it. The President is the one that has been cutting the deficit. And thank heavens for President Clinton, the only one in town since President Johnson that has cut the deficit. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct, tax increase.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me get right to the point of the statement I made back in 1980 when I was chairman of the Budget Committee and Mr. Giaimo of Connecticut, was chairman on the House side. Before I could get these records I put in a call to him. He is down in Florida just below Palm Beach. He verified my memory. Lots of times my memory is pretty good way back, and very precise, and then I cannot remember where I parked the car, so I always like to double check when I just speak from memory. He verified that Mr. Bellmon was the ranking member on the Senate side, and he and all the records show that the bill was not a reconciliation bill. There were not any reconciliation instructions in the fiscal `76 concurrent resolution on the budget, and the tax bill offered by Senator Long of Louisiana as the chairman of the Finance Committee was not a part of reconciliation. I thank the distinguished Senator. Amendment No. 3986 Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, referring again to the Record made back in 1975. The Parliamentarian points out the fact that Senator Muskie called it the reconciliation bill in that 1975 discourse. The truth of the matter is Senator Hartke raised that point. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum while I search for the particular quote.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I just reviewed the particular statement by Senator Muskie back in 1975. As I alluded in my original remarks, Senator Hartke of Indiana said, ``Where do you get that this is a reconciliation bill? There is no reference.'' Senator Muskie said, ``That is what Senator Long called it.'' He said, ``Just by calling it that, does it make it a reconciliation bill?'' I was going to read the exact quote, but I think the full Record should be included here at this point with respect to that special act in 1975. It is used as the authority that was a reconciliation bill. It responded to the second concurrent resolution. You read that Record. Mr. Muskie came on the floor at that particular time. He was catching up with what Chairman Long of Finance was doing and was trying to justify it. But the truth of the matter is, the Record will clearly show that the tax bill was only in response to the second concurrent budget resolution and not any reconciliation instructions. That was brought out by Senator Hartke. The exact discourse will be included in the Record. I had it here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again, regarding the record and this ruling, I turn to the Congressional Record, the House of Representatives, H11693, December 3, 1980. I quote Mr. Panetta: It obviously is the first time that the reconciliation process itself has been implemented under the Budget Act. Further: No other chairman in the history of the Budget Committee has been able to say that reconciliation has been implemented and put into place. They have passed budget resolutions. We have passed continuing resolutions of one kind or another, but this is the first time that a chairman of the Budget Committee has implemented the reconciliation process. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me ask for 2 more minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for passage of H.R. 1965, a bill to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA] for the fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999. This language is similar to language contained in S. 1142, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration authorization bill, which the Commerce Committee reported favorably late last session. In 1969, the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources--the--Stratton Commission--recom-mended that: A Coastal Zone Management Act be enacted which will provide policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize federal grants-in-aid to facilitate the establishment of State Coastal Zone Authorities empowered to manage the coastal waters and adjacent land. In response to this recommendation, Congress in 1972 enacted coastal zone management legislation to balance coastal development and preservation needs. To encourage State participation, the CZMA established a voluntary, two-stage, State assistance program. The first stage involves the award of section 305 grants to coastal States for development of coastal management programs meeting certain Federal requirements. State programs which were judged by the Secretary of Commerce to meet those requirements received Federal approval and became eligible for the second stage of grants. This second stage, under section 306, provides ongoing assistance for States to implement their federally approved coastal programs. All grants require equal matching funds from the State. Since passage of the CZMA, all 34 eligible State and territories have participated in the program to some degree. Of the original 34 participants, 29--24 States and five territories--currently have programs which have achieved federally approved status. Only five States are not actively participating in the program: Georgia, Texas, Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio. Considering the 29 programs for which Federal approval has been attained, the national CZM network covers in excess of 93 percent of the Nation's marine and Great Lakes coastline. The nature and structure of CZM programs vary widely from State to State. This diversity was intended by Congress. Some States, like North Carolina, passed comprehensive legislation as a framework for coastal management. Other States, like Oregon, used existing land use legislation as the foundation for their federally approved programs. Finally, States like Florida and Massachusetts networked existing, single-purpose laws into a comprehensive umbrella for coastal management. The national program, therefore, is founded in the authorities and powers of the coastal States and local governments. Through the CZMA, these collective authorities are orchestrated to serve the ``national interest in effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone.'' This 24-year program is a success story of how the local, State, and Federal Government can work together for the benefit of all who enjoy and rely on our coastal resources. H.R. 1965 is a simple 3-year reauthorization of a program that works well.