Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Massachusetts. The truth of the matter is that this is really a dirty trick on the schoolchildren of the District. Mr. President, 51 schools are in the District of Columbia, and only 8 of the 51 qualify for this so-called $3,000 scholarship. Mr. President, seven of the eight are religious schools. The $3,000 scholarship is not going to get them into schools. They will get them into the courts. It is a dirty trick. It is throwing a 50-yard line to the child 100 yards offshore and telling them to swim for it. Most of all, the very crowd that is sponsoring this nonsense--here I call it nonsense. We are not living up to the needs of public education. The fact is, in order to get this, this year, this Congress would be going into the $5 million a year program, cut $3 billion from public education. It is unheard of to try to start a private program. And the very crowd that sponsors this nonsense is a group that comes around here and beseeches us about balancing the budget and constitutional amendments to balance it and everything else of that kind. We are without money, running a $286 billion deficit last year, 1995. We do not have the money for this, and we are going to start a multibillion-dollar spending program? I said that was my suspicion earlier this week. Now I find it to be the fact, looking at the ``Education Daily,'' and the plan of Representative Steve Gunderson, Republican of Wisconsin, saying the national program authorizes the spending of up to $1 billion a year for vouchers. The $5 million program over the 5 years, in a few days' time, has already gotten to $5 billion. Suppose the program works? Where is the money? Where is that crowd that is going to come up now and start talking about balancing the budgets? Yes, we have to cut spending; yes, in this Senator's opinion, we have to increase taxes in order to pay for what we get--not cut taxes. More than anything else, we should not start off on fanciful programs not the responsibility beyond the constitutional function of this Congress that will cost billions more. Do not have this group saying they want to balance budgets and in the same breath start $5 billion programs for private endeavor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to draw everyone's attention to a column written about 2 weeks ago by Washington Post writer William Raspberry. In ``The Awful Truth About a Tax Cut,'' he outlines chapter and verse on how America simply cannot afford a tax cut at a time that a fiscal cancer is eating away the country. While pollster politicians are talking about a tax cut, the debt grows and interest payments on that debt are spiraling out of control. We have to wake up and take responsible action to kill this fiscal cancer. Otherwise, the America we know will cease to exist. Mr. President, I ask that Mr. Raspberry's February 12 column be printed in the Record. The column follows: [From the Washington Post, Feb. 12, 1996] The Awful Truth About a Tax Cut (By William Raspberry) If telling unpalatable truth is political suicide, Sen. Ernest F. Hollings must have a death wish. He's not just figuratively shouting from the rooftop the politically unspeakable--that there can be no balanced federal budget without a tax increase; he's threatened to throw himself from the rooftop if anybody proves him wrong. ``If anybody comes up with a seven-year balanced budget without a tax increase,'' he said again the other day, ``I'll jump off the Capitol dome.'' But surely that's an empty threat. Aren't the White House and congressional Republicans both claiming to have achieved what Hollings says is impossible? Isn't the only substantial difference between them the size of the tax cut? So why isn't Hollings jumping? ``None of the plans they're talking about balances the budget--or comes near it,'' the South Carolina Democrat told me. ``Just the service on the debt is growing so fast it's just not going to be possible without a tax increase.'' What masks this painful truth, he says, is a ruse practiced by Democrats and Republicans alike: counting the Social Security trust fund as an asset that reduces the apparent size of the budget shortfall. With the huge ``baby boom'' cohort now paying more in Social Security taxes than current retirees take out, the system is running a theoretical surplus. But this surplus is being spent along with the general revenues for current government expenses. The trust fund gets an IOU that must eventually be redeemed by--guess who?--taxpayers. The point Hollings wants to make, though, is not just that this amounts to dishonest bookkeeping. It is, he insists, also illegal. He ought to know. It was legislation he wrote (along with the late John Heinz ``who did the work on this'') that made it illegal. Nearly six years ago, Congress passed--and President Bush signed into law--Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act that includes this language: ``The concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and revenue totals of the old-age, survivors and disability insurance programs 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...'' ``That says in plain language they can't use the trust fund to cut the deficit,'' Hollings observes. ``And yet they keep doing it. The president and the Congress like to spend the Social Security money because it makes the budget look like it's moving toward balance. Wall Street likes it because if we don't come scurrying in to borrow from Wall Street, interest rates don't go up. ``But it's illegal, and they know it. I complain, they shrug their shoulders; they call it a `unified budget,' as though that changes something. If they don't like the law, why don't they change it? The truth is they're afraid to repeal it, and they're afraid to obey it.'' Hollings insists it's not wounded pride of authorship that has him shouting into the wind. The important issue is not the technical violation but the disaster it hides. Says Hollings: ``Everybody is wringing their hands about what will happen on Social Security seven years from now, or in the year 2025, or whatever. The problem is here and now. We are broke right now. Not Social Security. Social Security is paid for. Medicare is paid for. It's the general government--defense and the rest of it--that's not paid for. And because it's not, interest on the debt is running about a billion dollars a day. And here's the point: There's just no amount of spending cuts and loophole closings and freezes that is going to produce a savings of a billion dollars a day. ``Unless we raise taxes, we are just `fiddling while Rome burns.' '' He says it, knowing that a call for a tax increase (while his colleagues debate the size of the tax cut) is, if not suicidal, at least politically dangerous. ``Look, we all have to run for reelection, and we all take polls,'' he said. ``To do what I'm doing is sheer stupidity-- unless you can get a movement going to face up to what has to be done.'' Unfortunately, no such movement seems in the offing. The people are in a mood to punish any politician who tells them the truth as they know the truth to be about our fiscal disorder. It's time to pay the piper. And that's the truth.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for yielding me the time, and I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the reason the Catholic and the private school in Indiana next to that public school is vibrant and successful is that we are leaving it alone. The duty of the Government toward public education is to support and finance it. The duty of the Government with respect to private education is to leave it alone. That is the fundamental. When you say the question is, ``Is the United States going to insist that the minority student not be given a choice?'' That is not the question. The question is whether you and I, as Senators, are going to be able to choose public money for private endeavor. I never heard of such a thing. Is it a valid idea to allow children to attend private schools? That is a valid idea. They do it. I happen to come from public schools. I had a child in Woodrow Wilson public school and one at Cathedral private school. The validity is not a question. This crowd is wound up in pollster politics and new ideas. What nettles this particular Senator is why in the Lord's world we are not financing public education. Public education is working, generally. There are many examples of where it needs repair, but I can give you many examples of the private schools that are more in need of repair. I wish we had time to debate it. But the point is, having dealt with that debate we had around here for 10 years about tuition tax credits, they are now trying to sneak in a voucher program of financing private education. That is the same crowd that wants to do away with the Department of Education. And when my distinguished colleague from Connecticut says we are not taking any money from the schools--that is true about the effect of this particular provision on District schools. But, overall, you are taking $3 billion from public education and are about to try to give $42 million to the private schools. I hope we do kill this measure until we take this voucher cancer out. If it worked--I do not think it has any idea of working, but if it worked, you have started a multi-multibillion dollar program. If it worked in the District, come down to Charleston. I have a lot of good private schools down there, too. They will want financing and everything else. If vouchers work for the private schools, why not vouchers for the public schools? That is the one for new ideas-- education reform. This is not education reform. Scholarship, progressive--saying it is so does not make it so. I listen closely to the matter of the language and the persuasion used here. It was James Madison who said: But what is government itself the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. And we are totally out of control. We are talking about new ideas--anything--but throw money, start programs. We spent, for the last 15 years, $200 billion more than we have taken in. It is not a question of balancing the budget; it is a question of paying for what you get. Social Security is paid for. Medicare is paid for. Education is not paid for. Defense is not paid for. You do not want to pay the bills around here. You want to, willy- nilly, start off on a multibillion dollar program on an idea that we are against new ideas--come on. Mr. President, today we vote on whether or not to create a new Federal program to pay for private school tuitions. I hope my colleagues will keep in mind our duty in the area of education. Our duty to the public is to support public schools and our duty to private schools is to leave them alone. So far, this Congress has abandoned public education. I refer to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, in which the House cuts education by more than $3 billion. The cuts to federally assisted public schools in that bill average over $1,700 per classroom across this country. For example--and this is not the most extreme case--I have heard recently from a principal in Greenville, SC, at Sans Souci Elementary School. He has been principal at three other public schools that did not receive Federal chapter I money, and now he has taken on Sans Souci. ``Sans Souci'' means ``without care'' in French, but that is not the case with this school. Over 80 percent of his children qualify for free lunch and 60 percent of the parents did not graduate from high school. Mr. President, one-fifth of the budget at Sans Souci comes from the Federal chapter I program. We hear all the time that the Federal role is small--and it is on the average--but at the needier schools, particularly at the elementary level, the role is often much greater. Of course, the principal tells me that these funds are absolutely necessary and effective. Last semester he used these funds to hire reading specialists for children who began first grade with no literacy whatsoever. In 4 months, these children were reading 60 words and writing grammatical sentences in three-sentence groups. Furthermore, these funds have lowered average class size in his school and allowed him to boost the advanced training for his teachers. I would add that these are exactly the services this Congress would cut in Washington, D.C. We will lose basic reading and math services for an estimated 3,000 children. But, while this Congress proposes cutting services for the majority of the children at public schools, the stance toward private education has been the opposite. The Speaker himself held up funding for our Nation's capitol for 4 months to get a new, fully funded Federal program for private schools in the Washington area. Not one Senate conferee of either party supported this House provision. Chairman Hatfield, Chairman Jeffords, Senator Campbell, Senator Kohl, and Senator Inouye were in opposition. But, through the direct intervention of the Speaker, the House would not budge until the Senate took the whole $42 million 5-year authorization, plus full funding of $5 million for the first year on the D.C. appropriations bill. Thus, while we are supported to cut schools like Sans Souci, in Greenville, SC, we are supposed to initiate funding for St. Albans and Sidwell Friends. I have admissions information for St. Albans, for those who are interested. The tuition is $13,322 for day students and $18,856 for boarding students, but the deadline has already passed to apply for next fall. The brochure notes that students are admitted ``on the basis of entrance tests, academic promise, previous record, and recommendations.'' So if your child cannot yet show academic promise--maybe he or she will prove it at public school--keep your $13,000. If your child does not compete well with other children on standardized tests, find another school. If your child has a previous record with spots--maybe due to emotional stress from a divorce or to a learning disability--pay your tuition taxes, but take your child somewhere else. But if your child is uniformly bright, spotless, and promising the school may send a letter of invitation in mid-March. Mr. President, the duties and privileges of citizenship in this country do not require a letter of invitation. That is why, from Thomas Jefferson, to Horace Mann, to Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, we have developed a system that admits all children. So Sans Souci must let in all children, and St. Albans can pick and choose. Of course, not all private schools are as expensive as St. Albans. In fact, only 7 of the 51 private schools in Washington, DC have tuitions in the range of vouchers provided by this bill. And six of these seven schools are sectarian, religious schools. Mr. President, we can argue about what the current Supreme Court says about Federal entanglement with religion, but if six of the seven available schools are religious, there is going to be entanglement. Furthermore, there will be Government intervention in the independent schools. This is not a theoretical prediction--there is a track record. In 1989, the Bush administration published a report on educational choice in Europe--it was a prochoice document, with an enthusiastic introduction by Secretary Lauro Cavasos. But when you get to page 210, in the conclusion, you will find the following: Finally, this survey brings confirming evidence to several conflicting positions in the controversies over public funding for nonpublic schools. For those who believe strongly in religious schooling and fear that Government influence will come with public funding, reason exists for their concern. Catholic or Protestant schools in each of the nations studied have increasingly been assimilated to the assumptions and guiding values of public schooling. Mr. President, that is from the Bush administration. If you value the independence of the religious schools, if you do not want entanglement, the real-world experience with public funding says ``watch out.'' Similarly, with respect to social division: For those who fear that public support for parent choice will result in race and class segregation and unequal opportunities, the survey provides confirming evidence. That is the studied review from a little more than 6 years ago. Since that time, we also have a program in Milwaukee, WI. We have two private schools that have just shut down there in the last month--one with the director apparently involved in drugs. He reported that he was teaching voucher children and nonvoucher children, but it turned out that all the children were on taxpayer vouchers. Representative Polly Williams, who wrote the Milwaukee voucher program, is calling for regulation of the private schools. But the program is moving in the other direction. It is expanding, and with less and less oversight or restriction. After 5 years of yearly evaluations showed no educational progress, the legislature has eliminated funding for further evaluation, reportedly due to political pressure. The legislature has eliminated the requirement that schools rely partly on privately paying students instead of only on Government vouchers. And, the courts are holding up the expansion due to the threat of religious entanglement. Mr. President, this is not the fate we want for public schools. We hear this cry for accountability, accountability, but in Milwaukee we have gone from worrying over student achievement to worrying over whether they will have a school. And, while these school closings get the most attention, the real story is that attention and support is drawn away from improving the public schools that educate the vast majority of America's children. This Senate should reconsider its proposals to cut public education and to start taxpayer funding of private schools. I urge my colleagues to start getting back on the right track by voting against cloture on this D.C. voucher program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by Al Shanker, that recently appeared in the New York Times, ``Risky Business.''

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Marsh Grass Too, hull identification number AUKEV51139K690, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. Code. The Marsh Grass Too was recently constructed in Australia and is a catamaran intended for use as a recreational vessel. The vessel is 28 feet in length, capable of accommodating 12 people, and is self- propelled. The vessel is owned by Marsha Hass of South Carolina. Ms. Hass would like to utilize her vessel in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. However, because the vessel was built in a foreign shipyard, it does not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. The Marsh Grass Too is a catamaran, a vessel U.S. shipbuilders do not normally build. This particular vessel is built of kevlar, a product of DuPont, and would be imported into the United States as a bare hull. All motors, electronics, and accessories will be purchased and installed in the United States. Coastwise documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owner of the Marsh Grass Too is seeking a waiver of the existing law because she wishes to use the vessel for recreational charters. Her desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If she is granted this waiver, it is her intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Marsh Grass Too to engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Marsh Grass Too, hull identification number AUKEV51139K690, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, U.S. Code. The Marsh Grass Too was recently constructed in Australia and is a catamaran intended for use as a recreational vessel. The vessel is 28 feet in length, capable of accommodating 12 people, and is self- propelled. The vessel is owned by Marsha Hass of South Carolina. Ms. Hass would like to utilize her vessel in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. However, because the vessel was built in a foreign shipyard, it does not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. The Marsh Grass Too is a catamaran, a vessel U.S. shipbuilders do not normally build. This particular vessel is built of kevlar, a product of DuPont, and would be imported into the United States as a bare hull. All motors, electronics, and accessories will be purchased and installed in the United States. Coastwise documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owner of the Marsh Grass Too is seeking a waiver of the existing law because she wishes to use the vessel for recreational charters. Her desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If she is granted this waiver, it is her intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Marsh Grass Too to engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, awaiting the attendance here, to deliver his comments, of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, let me join with my distinguished chairman in thanking the hardest-working staff I have ever been associated with during my years. The truth is, as the Senator from South Dakota has said, they only had that 1 day off at Thanksgiving. We worked all weekends and everything else. But this started, really, in October 1993. We had worked very hard, gotten a three-fourths vote of the U.S. Senate on a manufacturing bill. We learned the hard way that these entities, the various disciplines in telecommunications, had the power to obviate or cancel out the enactment or passage of any measure, once they got determined to do so. With a three-fourths vote, we still could not pass the simple manufacturing bill, the text of which is already in this measure here as a minor item compared to being a single bill. So we agreed to work in a bipartisan fashion and bring in every week the various interests involved--every Friday the regional Bell companies, the principals involved, and thereupon on every Monday, the various long distance carriers. They have been doing this now for the past almost 3 years. So, I thank, as I pointed out, Paddy Link, Don McClellan over on the minority side--as well as Katie King and Earl Comstock. I particularly want to thank for their guidance and counseling Kevin Curtin, John Windhausen, and Kevin Joseph on our Commerce Committee Democratic side--because I never really would be able to imbibe this entire measure without their help. They have really been in the trenches over the many years. They have given expert advice. They have listened to all the parties. They know all the lawyers. This town has 60,000 lawyers registered to practice before the District of Columbia bar. I think 59,000 of them are in the communications discipline. And I think we met all 59,000, I am convinced, in the last 3 years. I also want to thank Jim Drewry, Yvonne Portee, Sylvia Cikins, Pierre Golpira, Lloyd Ator, and Joyce Kennedy of our Commerce Committee staff; Jim Weber of Senator Daschle's leadership staff; Greg Simon for Vice President Gore; Steve Richetti for the White House; Carol Ann Bischoff for Senator Kerrey; and the staff members of our Commerce Committee members. These include Margaret Cummisky for Senator Inouye, Tom Zoeller and the late Martha Moloney for Senator Ford, Chris McLean for Senator Exon, Cheryl Bruner for Senator Rockefeller, Scott Bunton and Carole Grunberg for Senator Kerry, Mark Ashby and Thomas Moore for Senator Breaux, Andy Vermilye for Senator Bryan, and Greg Rohde for Senator Dorgan. Let me also thank, Mr. President, talking about the bipartisan nature, the leadership over on the House side that we have the privilege to work with. Because Chairman Dreier on the House side was a tiger on this measure. He was determined that we get this bill passed. In fact, we were ready really before Christmas. And working with him, Mr. Markey, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Fields--all on that Communications Committee, a major committee over on the Judiciary Committee--Mr. Hyde, and Mr. Conyers, they all worked hand in glove to make sure that the public interest was protected. Particularly, since I mentioned the Judiciary Committee feature of this measure, the Department of Justice was protected in the sense that what we did was have the savings clause for all antitrust laws included, positive language, and the substantial weight of the Department of Justice be given by the Federal Communications Commission in their decision. I yield now to our distinguished colleague from Nebraska, Senator Bob Kerrey, who has worked intimately with us. He was not on our Communications Committee, but I thought he was by the way he attended the meetings, and his staff was in there making suggestions and making sure that the public interest was protected. So it is a particular pleasure for me at this time to yield to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me join in the comments of my chairman. There is not any question that we would not have this bill if we did not have Ted Stevens and his wonderful leadership and work. He took over the so-called farm team. We have been working for 4 years, as the Senator from South Dakota knows. The farm team, the rural areas--we wanted to protect those. We learned in airline deregulation that we did not protect the rural areas, sparsely settled areas. So we made, under the leadership of Senator Stevens, requirements that any competition, any competitor coming in must serve the entire area, and the States had the authority to say how that competition would develop in the rural areas. We provided infrastructure sharing with the RBOC's, and on down the list. That is all attributed to the wisdom of our distinguished Senator and colleague from Alaska. I join in the complimentary remarks made by my distinguished chairman. The Senator from Vermont has given leadership to this from the very beginning and has had various provisions in the bill while we debated it on the floor, and I want to thank him publicly for his leadership. I yield now 10 minutes under our time agreement.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield that to my colleague from Nebraska.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me, as we acknowledge the contributions of so many--specifically on Senator Stevens' staff, I meant to mention our friend Earl Comstock. I worked with him throughout the years on our Commerce Committee, and he was really diligent, along with Senator Lott's staff, in the early days, Chip Pickering and now Kevin Pritchett, and, of course, Senator Lott himself over there, along with Senator Stevens. On our side, you would have to comment on the contribution of Senator Ford, who has been down there helping us orchestrate everything. He was been there since the early times helping us, along with Senator Exon and his contribution on cyberporn and its control; Senator Rockefeller, along with Senator Snowe in the Snowe-Rockefeller particular amendment relative to the discounted rates of the schools, the libraries, the hospitals. Senator Breaux of Louisiana has been very, very active on this measure. I certainly want to thank him. The reason we do this, Mr. President, to go right to the point while we have a minute, is so the public can understand the involvement. We had involved in this particular measure and in the conference report, which has just been adopted, incidentally, over on the House side by a vote of 414 to 16. I do not know what happened to 16 people, how they got misled. I do not see why we did not get a unanimous vote, but, in any event, it shows the wonderful work done by Chairman Bliley, Congressman Markey, and the others over on the House side. Look at the entities involved: The regional Bell operating companies. They have a tremendous interest and influence, and the long-distance companies. I think that was the real contest. I mentioned earlier that on every Friday, we got together the RBOC's, the regional companies, and every Monday the staff would work. It was all on top of the table. There was no downtown lawyering and that kind of thing. It was all on top of the table with the long-distance companies. Necessarily, the long-distance companies had been thrown into competition at the time of the divestiture back some 10 years ago. And Bob Allen, chairman of AT&T said, ``Look, I have a third less personnel. I am doing a third more work and making an increased profit.'' So as they downsized, as they call it, and became competitive, the best proof that competition has worked is with MCI and Sprint and AT&T and the rest of them that come in under that particular description. But the long-distance companies have been so aggressive that they were beginning to move into the local exchange. I know of one particular concern this Senator had in the southern region where our friends at MCI said they were going to move into Atlanta with our friends of Bell South. Bell South is, yes, a monopoly, but it was a control monopoly whereby they could not get into long distance. It was to our interest and the public interest, of course, that they not be cherry picked. In other words, take off the wonderful market of Atlanta and just leave the rest of the State wanting. That had occurred in downtown New York City with Teleport. So we wanted them to come in on an even-steven, balanced basis. Trying to work that out was really the task to bring them on board where they all approved of this particular bill and supported this particular bill. Not that they are 100 percent in agreement with every feature, obviously, but they realize this is a mammoth step forward in trying to bring the communications law of America into the modern technological age. So we had the guidance of the 8(c) test from our friend Judge Greene where he ruled that there be no substantial possibility of using monopoly power to impede competition. Every word meant something to every communications lawyer. So we had to really get a checklist of ``unbundling'' and ``dialing parity'' and ``access,'' and all these things to be agreed upon. It took actually weeks on every one of those particular measures all last year where we worked around the clock to get it balanced and not overweighted one way and not let long distance come in and market without the ability, let us say, of our Bell companies to joint market also. So we were educated about that and came around to a balance in this particular measure and now have the support of, and can you imagine of all of these entities supporting this particular measure: The regional Bell operating companies, the long-distance companies, the broadcasters, the cable TV companies, the cellular, satellite companies, the newspapers, burglar alarm, electronic publishing, public utilities, pay phones, minority groups, computers were vitally interested in the outcome of this particular measure, the schools, libraries, the hospitals. Snowe-Rockefeller, the Secretary of Education, Dick Reilly, and the administration were strong in this information superhighway of our distinguished Vice President. The Department of Justice worked diligently to make sure it was not just a casual thing to send a letter or opinion over to the Federal Communications Commission and just be thrown in the wastebasket; that it should be given substantial weight to their opinion to make sure that no monopolistic tendencies and actual entities develop in opening up the markets for competition. The State public service commissions had to be coached and brought along. The cities, the retailers of equipment, the privacy groups, the local competition or competitors like Teleport, the manufacturers, the rural telephone companies, the independent program producers. I can go on and on. But we now have the support of every one of these groups. I think we have it because we feel very strongly that the public interest has been protected in the long-distance section, in the broadcast section and carried over from the 1934 Telecommunications Act. The antitrust laws have been protected, as I pointed out. One of the big disputes that we had was the takeover of 50 percent of the broadcast market in the United States. Mr. President, I could be President if I had that. I would call up Madison Avenue and say, ``You're not going to advertise your Miller High Life unless,'' and then I would complete my thought. You can control 50 percent of the television advertising in this country, and we also already saw a tendency by cable news--CNN did not want to carry certain parts of advertisements because it was against their interest. We tried to protect against that. But if you had 50 percent, you might as well forget it, because the money is there, they buy it out, they control it. You could become the President, as we can see right now on the buying of the Presidency up in the distinguished State of New Hampshire where the distinguished Presiding Officer lives. I as a candidate, if I take the public moneys, am limited to $600,000. But if I have millions, I have spent millions, go to Channel 5 in Boston and cover Highway 128 going up to Nashua where half of the population of that great State resides. It is not so much the flat tax as it is the sweep of the television control and the purchase. We will get to that later on with campaign financing, because I have a one-line constitutional amendment: The Congress of the United States is hereby empowered to control expenditures in Federal elections. We have had bipartisan support, a majority vote. All we lack is two- thirds for that particular amendment. I go back to the day when our colleague from Louisiana, Senator Russell Long, was elocuting in 1974 about the Federal Election Campaign Practices Act and said every mother's son was going to be able to run for President. Nobody was going to be able to buy it. Now they are buying it. But let me go back to communications. We are about to vote. We protected the 50 percent. We never would yield on that. That would be embarrassing for anybody to stand on the floor and ask for it. To tell you, the only reason I agreed to 35 percent is CBS. Westinghouse already has 32 percent, and we did not want to have to go backwards. Twenty-five percent is enough. We protected the rural areas. The distinguished chairman of our committee, Senator Pressler, Senator Stevens of Alaska, and Senator Burns of Montana and all, they protected those rural areas. Any competitor that comes in must serve the entire rural area. They cannot just come in and take a part. The public service commissions or authorities will determine how competition will occur in those rural areas. The infrastructure sharing is provided for from the regional Bell operating companies to help them sustain. We learned a lot with that blooming airline deregulation. I see I have a colleague who wants a few minutes. I want to yield to make sure he can comment. The RBOC's, the checklist, and the long distance I have touched on. Universal service: Every carrier, Mr. President, coming into the local market shall contribute. We have the Rockefeller provision and Senator Exon's cyberporn provision, which he is momentarily ready to address. How much time do I have left?

Mr. HOLLINGS. The gentleman from Hawaii is correct. His state's local television market developed differently from continental markets because of its unique geography and terrain, and thus is characterized by many VHF stations. Many of our concerns about combinations involving two VHF stations in local markets in the continental United States do not apply to Hawaii. The FCC should recognize this distinction when considering the duopoly rule.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The gentleman's interpretation is my interpretation as well.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I'd be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his leadership and participation within the committee. Throughout the entire debate, it was his influence, and he almost won a vote on the floor. At one time, it seemed down in the well here he had prevailed. That kind of pressure I welcome, because I happen to have agreed with him. But you have to get together in a bipartisan fashion in order to get things done. I emphasize that. I will also join as a cosponsor on the bill of the distinguished Senator. I think the Senator from Vermont momentarily is proceeding to the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would agree with the explanation given by the chairman and am pleased to have this opportunity to further clarify our intent in the alarm industry provisions. Mr. President, I am trying to save time and yield to our distinguished colleague from North Dakota. While he is coming to the floor, let me first acknowledge the leadership and the understanding and, more than anything else, the persistence of our distinguished chairman. Senator Pressler has been a dogged fighter all last year. He set history, there is no question in my mind, in this particular measure. I have been here 28 years, now in my 29th year. I have been chairman of the Budget Committee, and on the Budget Committee for over 20 years, and this measure is far more complex than any annual budget or any nonsensical 7-year budget plan. It is totally ludicrous to think that we could bind Congresses into the next century. That is gamesmanship that has been going on. On the contrary, here is a bipartisan measure that was reported out overwhelmingly from our Commerce Committee, not only 2 years ago under S. 1822, but again this year under S. 652. I will acknowledge and then get back to two leaders in this particular cause, in addition to our distinguished chair. The former chairman of our Communications Subcommittee and now ranking member, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, has been in the trenches all the time giving his leadership, and also most particularly to Judge Harold Greene. I do not see how, having worked intimately on this particular measure, one Federal judge could do the remarkable job that has been done by Judge Greene. Now we move from the judiciary back over to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission, let it be noted, not on account of any inadequacy of the court in the person of Judge Harold Greene, but rather because no single entity could possibly enunciate and pursue the policy of communications of the national Congress. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield 10 minutes, under our agreement, to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today the Senate considers the conference agreement to S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This bill is intended to promote competition in every sector of the communications industry, including the broadcast, cable, wireless, long distance, local telephone, manufacturing, pay telephone, electronic publishing, cable equipment, and direct broadcast satellite industries. This legislation has the support of the Clinton administration and almost every sector of the communications industry. I urge my colleagues to pass this comprehensive legislation. Mr. President, this conference agreement comes before the Senate for final passage after years of debate. In 1991, I authored legislation to allow the Regional Bell Operating Companies [RBOC's] into manufacturing. That bill passed the Senate by almost \3/4\ of the Senate, but the House could not pass it. Several other bills were offered, but at each stage, one industry blocked the other. As a result, communications policy has been set by the courts, not by Congress and not by the Federal Communications Commission [FCC], the expert agency. In 1994, I introduced S. 1822, the Communications Act of 1994, which contained the most comprehensive revision of the communications law since 1934. In that year, the committee held 31 hours of testimony in 11 days of hearings from 86 witnesses. Though that bill was reported by the Commerce Committee by a vote of 18 to 2, there was not enough time in the 103d Congress to complete our work. Senator Pressler and I decided earlier this year to pick up where we left off in the last Congress. We jointly introduced S. 652 early in 1995 and succeeded in passing the bill out of the Commerce Committee by a vote of 17-2 on March 23 of last year. The bill passed the Senate in June by an overwhelming vote of 81-18. After the House passed its version of the legislation in August, the two Houses entered into the difficult task of reconciling the two bills over several months through the fall and winter. I am pleased that the conferees have succeeded in reconciling these bills. I believe that the conference report that is brought before the Senate today is a fair and balanced compromise between the bills passed by the two Houses. It retains many of the concepts contained in my legislation from the 103d Congress. For instance, it promotes competition, it retains strong protections for universal service and rural telephone companies, it promotes consumer privacy, and it allows the RBOC's into long distance and manufacturing under certain safeguards. At the same time, this legislation contains many more deregulatory provisions than were contained in my legislation from last year. It allows greater media concentration than I would have preferred. It deregulates cable on a date certain, rather than upon a determination that there is actual competition. Nevertheless, I believe that this legislation on the whole presents a balanced package that deserves the support of every Member of this body. The basic thrust of the bill is clear: competition is the best regulator of the marketplace. Until that competition exists, monopoly providers of services must not be able to exploit their monopoly power to the consumer's disadvantage. Timing is everything. Telecommunications services should be deregulated after, not before, markets become competitive. Competition is spurred by the bill's provisions specifying the criteria for entry into various markets. For example, on a broad scale, cable companies soon will provide telephone service, and telephone companies will offer video services. Consumers will soon be able to purchase local telephone service from several competitors, and vice versa. Electric utility companies will offer telecommunications services. The RBOC's will engage in manufacturing activities. All these participants will foster competition to each other and create jobs along the way. We should not attempt to micromanage the marketplace; rather, we must set the rules in a way that neutralizes any party's inherent market power, so that robust and fair competition can ensue. This is Congress' responsibility, and so the bill transfers jurisdiction over the modification of final judgment [MFJ] from the courts to the FCC. Judge Greene, who has been overseeing the MFJ, has been doing yeoman's work in attempting to ensure that monopolies do not abuse their market power. But it is time for Congress to reassert its responsibilities in this area, and this conference agreement does just that. Mr. President, let me address some of the specific areas of important in the bill. Universal Service The need to protect and advance universal service is one of the fundamental concerns of the conferees in drafting this conference agreement. Universal service must be guaranteed; the world's best telephone system must continue to grow and develop, and we must attempt to ensure the widest availability of telephone service. The conference agreement retains the provision in the Senate bill that requires all telecommunications carriers to contribute to universal service. A Federal-State joint board will define universal service, and this definition will evolve over time as technologies change so that consumers have access to the best possible services. Special provisions in the legislation address universal service in rural areas to guarantee that harm to universal service is avoided there. RBOC Entry into Long Distance One of the most contentious issues in this whole discussion has been when, or if, the RBOC's should be allowed to enter the long-distance market. I share the concern of many consumers that the RBOC's should not be permitted to enter the long-distance market while they retain a monopoly over local telephone service. For this reason, I strongly opposed the idea that the RBOC's should be permitted to enter the long- distance market on a date certain, whether they face competition or not. I am pleased that the conference agreement recognizes that the RBOC's must open their networks to competition prior to their entry into long distance. Cable Rate Deregulation The 1992 Cable Act was a great success. The rate regulation provisions of that legislation have saved consumers about $3 billion a year. The 1992 law also stimulated competition for cable service by wireless cable providers and direct broadcast satellite [DBS]. For these reason, I have agreed to go along with the provisions in the final conference agreement what would deregulate the upper tiers of cable service on March 31, 1999. By that time, we expect that competition from DBS and wireless cable, and perhaps from the telephone companies, will provide enough restraint on further cable rate increases. I believe that this is a fair compromise that serves the interests of consumers and the cable industry. Broadcast Issues The conference agreement changes some of the current rules and statutory provisions concerning media concentration. I share the concerns of the Clinton administration and others that excessive media concentration could harm the diversity of voices in the communications marketplace. At the same time, that marketplace has undergone several changes since many of these rules were first adopted in the 1970's. As a result, I have agreed to some changes in the ownership rules to allow the broadcast and cable industries to compete on more equal footing. importance of must-carry I would like to add one more point concerning the importance of must- carry. Broadcast stations are important sources of local news, public affairs programming and other local broadcast services. This category of service will be an important part of the public interest determination to be made by the Commission when deciding whether a broadcast renewal application shall be granted by the Commission. To prevent local television broadcast signals from being subject to noncarriage or repositioning by cable television systems and those providing cable services, we must recognize and reaffirm the importance of mandatory carriage of local commercial television stations, as implemented by Commission rules and regulations. conclusion This comprehensive bill strikes a balance between competition and regulation. New markets will be opened, competitors will begin to offer services, and consumers will be better served by having choices among providers of services. I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill. I myself would go further in several areas covered by the legislation, and not as far in other areas. But I have seen that, unless we adopt a comprehensive approach to legislation, any one sector of the telecommunications industry can stop this bill and checkmate the others. Telecommunications reform is too important to let this opportunity go by. This conference agreement is an equitable approach to most of the areas covered by the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a ``Resolved Issues'' table be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the fine work South Carolina Educational Television is doing to promote Black History Month. On Wednesday, February 21, SC ETV will feature the ninth annual Black History Teleconference live from the campus of Benedict College in Columbia, S.C. ``The Struggle Continues: African-American Women as Nurturing and Contributing Forces in America'' will feature eight South Carolina high school seniors who will question a panel of nationally acclaimed African-American leaders. The 90-minute teleconference will be broadcast live via satellite to more than 500 school districts nationwide, colleges, and universities. The eight high school panelists for South Carolina are Dion Alexander of Woodruff High School, LaShonda R. Davis of Bishopville High School, Felicia DuRante of Mauldin High School, Latasha Johnson of Baptist High School, Tahnee Johnson of Walterboro High School, Juontonio Pinckney of Battery Creek High School, Lemekia Stewart of Lockhart High School, and Joey Walker of Silver Bluff High School. I send my congratulations to each of them for their academic and civic achievements. Also, I would like to commend Dr. Marianna Davis of Keenan High School in Columbia. She has been the driving force behind this annual event. She is an inspiring role model for our youth because she encourages them to set high goals and to work hard to reach them. Mr. President, I also commend Henry Cauthen, president of South Carolina ETV; Dr. Davis; the students; and the panelists of ``The Struggle Continues'' for their continuing devotion to cultural excellence in broadcasting. We are very proud of our fine educational network in South Carolina. It serves as an example for the Nation in presenting this teleconference during Black History Month.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, over the last month I've traveled to every county in South Carolina. And one of the things that I heard from people was that they want America to keep a strong National Guard. As a veteran, I know that a strong National Guard is vital to national security. Time and again, National Guard troops proved themselves to be as competent--if not more so--as regular troops in the active military. Air National Guard troops from South Carolina routinely are rated among the best in the service. They flew countless missions in the Persian Gulf War and flew them with skill, accuracy and expertise. Army National Guard troops from South Carolina proved themselves to be ready to mobilize and fight almost at the drop of a hat. Mr. President, a strong National Guard also makes common sense. In these days where dollars are stretched thin, we can get three qualified and highly trained guardsmen for the cost of one active-duty soldier. Perhaps more importantly, however, having a strong Guard builds community support for the military. Think about it--the men and women who serve in the National Guard work in towns and counties every day across the country. They work in stores, construction sites, mills, factories and offices. And they set the example of public service for everyone. When their units are called up, their co-workers all turn out to support their efforts. Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago when I was in Laurens, South Carolina, Rich Browne, the local newspaper editor, and I discussed the value of a strong Guard. His comments in a recent column are to-the- point. I hope every Senator would read this wise column and resist efforts to reduce the size of our National Guard units. Mr. President, I ask that Rich Browne's column from the January 4 edition of the Laurens County Advertiser be reprinted in the Congressional Record. The column follows: Avoiding military adventures [From the Laurens County Advertiser by Rich Browne] This should be an interesting year for the U.S. military. With the active duty services once again calling on reserves to support the efforts to police the peace in Bosnia, according to news reports, the Department of Defense once again is leading a charge to reduce the role of National Guard units in preparing for the defense of the nation. Well, the truth be known, the Department of the Army would like for all the combat arms units in the National Guard to just go away--they are a threat to the active Army's jobs. I saw this first-hand in Desert Storm and despite the Pentagon's contention that it would save the military a billion dollars per year to shift the focus of reserve units from fighting units to support units, the Army wants to deny that it would be cheaper and more effective to reduce the active component even further while increasing the number of troops in the reserve components. However, don't look for this to happen and I'll tell you why. First, it drastically would cut the number of active duty staff officer positions at the Pentagon and they are the ones who are drawing up the plans to downsize the military. No one, and I mean no one, is willingly going to say ``Eliminate me and destroy my career,'' when an option can be made to eliminate someone else's job (even if they do it at less than half the cost). Second, it is a matter of control. Because of its dual state-federal role, the National Guard is not totally under the control of federal army, something senior staff members resent and dream up ways to eliminate. Even though, again speaking from personal experience, Guard and reserve units often meet or exceed the standards set for active duty units, despite the fact they don't practice at the job 270 days a year. Third, it limits the options of the executive branch to use the military in questionable operations. Note that the hue and cry about the use of U.S. forces in the Balkans and places like Somalia and Haiti are muted when the troops used are professional, full-time volunteers when compared to the times when the political leadership has to bite the bullet to tap into every village and hamlet to send forces in harm's way. The civilian and military leadership in the Pentagon knows these things full well and, hence, would rather keep their jobs and control of careers, while keeping open the options for ticket-punching operations that are so vital to career progression. The argument is that the combat units in the National Guard won't go to war and are ill-prepared to fight if they are sent, which--to borrow a phrase from retired Gen. H. Norman ``Stormin' Norman'' Schwarzkopf--is just so much bovine scatology. When the Arm went to war in the Persian Gulf, its units were no more prepared than many National Guard units. Most used the months preceding the ground attack to ``train up'' in the desert and bring their troops up to the needed ``combat readiness.'' The three National Guard armored brigades that were mobilized during Desert Storm where held in the U.S. not so much because their training was not up to snuff but because if they had gone to the desert and acquitted themselves well . . . well, it would have disproved the myth that reserve soldiers can't perform up to the same standards as active duty soldiers. Imagine what Congress and the budget cutters would have thought then. Gee, for 40 cents on the dollar, we can field a capable force that doesn't need all the full-time auxiliary services like housing, medical care and other benefits that we have to give the active duty force. We might be able to get a lot more bang for our buck. Lay aside those arguments, and the arguments about all the support and benefits to national defense that come from a truly citizen army, and there is one vital reason why the political leadership in Washington and the Pentagon should not be allowed to reduce the Army to just professional soldiers: It removes the political cost on military adventures overseas. If the civilian leadership has to go to every hamlet and village to draw men (and now women) to carry rifles and man tanks and artillery pieces, then it has to be able to justify the mission to the American people. This can be a tough sell and can be avoided if it is just a matter of sending in the professionals that have slipped under the radar of the folks back home. Hey, they volunteered for the job and it goes with the territory. But don't look for that argument to be made. Even though we learned that lesson in Vietnam, when we didn't have large scale mobilizations of the reserve components and paid the price in 58,000 lives, we have forgotten it again. Gone, now, is the leadership that created the ``Total Force'', the Army that was built so that the civilian leadership couldn't commit U.S. forces in substantial numbers without paying the political price of getting the American people on board. The new leadership wants to be able to go anywhere, anytime and not worry about support back home. It saves their careers.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to pass, S. 1396, the Interstate Commerce Commission Sunset Act of 1995. This bill, reported out of the Commerce Committee by a unanimous vote, eliminates the Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC], terminates numerous existing ICC functions, and establishes an Intermodal Surface Transportation Board to carry out the remaining rail and motor carrier regulatory functions. With this bipartisan bill, the Congress will have completed the work begun with the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, to free the surface transportation industry from unnecessary and outmoded regulation, while continuing to protect shippers of all commodities and household goods from possible abuse by carriers. In addition, this bill sunsets the Federal Maritime Commission by January 1, 1997, and will move that agency's necessary functions to the new Board. Thus, the bill will eliminate two Federal agencies, combining their remaining functions into one Intermodal Board that is smaller than either of the former agencies. The passage of this bill is of some urgency. The ICC will run out of money within a few weeks, and its elimination without an orderly transition of its key functions is likely to disrupt affected industries. The rail industry and household goods carriers, in particular, want to ensure the continuity of the current regulatory scheme. For the most part S. 1396 accomplishes the goal of orderly transition. I note that a very similar bill, H.R. 2539, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 417 to 8 late last week. I expect that the differences between the two bills can be resolved quickly. S. 1396 is a good bill. It is, as reflected in the committee vote, a bipartisan effort to develop a transportation oversight program that is appropriate to the 21st century. I urge, and hope my colleagues will support, its consideration and passage.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to remember and to thank Patrick R. Allen for his 25-year career as head of the Central Electric Power Cooperative in my home State. Pat is retiring in January and he'll be sorely missed. Central Electric plays a critical role in the lives of thousands of South Carolinians. It is a wholesale supplier for 15 rural electric cooperatives in South Carolina, which in turn supply electricity to more than 345,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in two-thirds of the State. Pat Allen's role in steering Central Electric has been critical. Pat moved to South Carolina from his native Texas in 1970 to take a job as manager of engineering and construction with Central Electric. He became president and chief executive officer in 1975. The company has grown tremendously under his leadership and moved from a one-floor office in the Farm Bureau Building in Cayce to its present home in Columbia. Pat introduced the first computers to Central and wrote the original programs. He installed an economic development department, which later became the nucleus of a successful new venture, Palmetto Economic Development Corp. Now, the spin-off company represents Central Electric and another public service company, Santee Cooper, in its economic development mission. Pat introduced many marketing concepts to Central's member cooperative that have earned national recognition for their proactive and aggressive approaches. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to recognize the years of devotion and strong leadership that Pat has brought to Central Electric and its customers. I wish him and his wife JoAnne all the best during Pat's retirement and hope they have many more happy years to come.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the 38-year career of a dedicated public servant who makes the Internal Revenue Service look good. Donald L. Breihan, who is the district director of the Columbia District of the IRS and who runs the service's 11 offices across South Carolina, will retire January 5. To put it succinctly, he'll be missed. For 16 years, Don's down-to-earth, hands-off style of managing nearly 400 IRS employees in South Carolina has transformed many local tax initiatives and programs into national models. On the job, he is known throughout the Nation for his fairness and professionalism. And in the community as an adjunct professor at the school of business at the University of South Carolina and as a past member of the board of directors of the Combined Federal Campaign, Don is known for his dedication and service. Don has been head of the Columbia District since 1980. In his years there, he is credited with developing an award-winning Federal/State Tax Administration Sharing Program. As the IRS Southeast Region Federal/State Sharing Program executive, he coordinates Federal/State programs in the nine Southeastern States. Don also oversees the operation of Federal tax administration in South Carolina--a job in which he manages the collection of $11 billion in Federal tax every year from 1.5 million filers of Federal income tax returns. Don was born 60 years ago in St. Louis, MO. He joined the IRS after he got a bachelor's degree in accounting from St. Louis University. In 1973, he started training in the agency's executive development program and became assistant district director of its Richmond, VA, office later that year. After a stint in Baltimore, he moved in 1980 to Columbia to take over IRS operations for the State of South Carolina. Mr. President, Don Breihan is not a native of our Palmetto State, but he quickly earned the respect to be treated like one. His hard work, commitment and spirit of dedication make him a tried and true South Carolinian. His brand of public service won't be able to be replaced. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to recognize the years of energy and devotion that Donald L. Breihan has worked to make our State a better place. I am glad that he is making South Carolina his permanent home. And I wish him and his wife Nancy all the best during Don's retirement and many more happy years to come.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished leader and Members themselves. Mr. President, I will save the Senate time by withdrawing the one on campaign finance. That is the best evidence that I had relative to the understanding or misunderstanding about relevance. Point 1: The 10 amendments to the Constitution were originally submitted as 12 amendments, the 11th being the 27th amendment, not relevant, of course, voted on separately. And if a point of order is made, then of course the flag is not relevant to balancing the budget, or balancing the budget is not relevant to the flag. I understand that. But the technical point of constitutional amendments, this has been submitted as a separate article, and on merit I dispute and appeal the ruling of the Chair. Otherwise, what we have is a glorious opportunity to get No. 1 in the contract performed. They have not been able to get term limitations or the matter of line-item veto or deregulation, and we can go down the list. But you can get, certainly, this No. 1 in the contract by voting today for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, word for word, the Dole amendment----

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me acknowledge a misunderstanding. When I was asked on Friday about the amendment, because I had been stalking my distinguished majority leader, waiting for him to put up a joint resolution all year long, I was asked about amendments, and I told him I had two. They said you would have to be able to debate them on Monday. I said fine. They said there will probably be a time limitation. I said fine. In no wise was any inference or reference made to relevance. As a result, I understand the distinguished minority leader is going to ask that we vote it down because, when the two leaders, majority and minority, make an agreement, they have to hold fast to their agreements--except, of course, in this case. You cannot take the position of being none whatsoever, because it is not a mistrust of the minority leader. It has been a mistake. Similarly, if it has been a mistake with this particular Senator, because if I had been asked if it had to be relevant, we would not have a unanimous-consent agreement and would not be voting on the flag. So we are sort of, as they say in the law, in pari delicto. Point 1: It does not necessarily have to be relevant.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I appeal, Mr. President. I appeal the ruling of the Chair. And, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.