Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Word for word, the Dole amendment with the Nunn amendment to it with respect to the limitation on judicial power. Otherwise, the provision that the protection in section 13301 of the United States Code of laws is not repealed, that protection being for Social Security. Section 7 of the original Dole amendment repealed that section. We voted just 3 weeks ago, by 97 to 2, to instruct the conferees that they not use Social Security moneys. So it brings it crystal clear into view now and into a particular vote. If you really want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, this is a wonderful opportunity, because we had five of us on this side of the aisle sign a letter to that effect. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent just to get 2 more minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have before us this afternoon two opportunities that could be looked upon by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia as not an opportunity at all. We have debated the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution already for a month this year. And on Friday, when we were formulating a unanimous-consent agreement, I was asked by our distinguished staff if I had amendments. I said I had two amendments. They cautioned that I would perhaps have to be prepared to debate them on Monday. I said I would be delighted. They said it could be under a time limitation. I said that would be very much agreeable to this particular Senator. A point of order could be raised perhaps about the relevancy of my amendment, and if it were and I was ruled not to be in order, I would have to appeal that in order to get a vote. This particular Senator has waited all year long. I have carried around in my pocket the amendment itself. I know the distinguished Speaker of the House has his contract. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia has the Constitution that he carries around in his pocket. There he is. And I have dutifully--in order to bring the truth to the American public--carried around an amendment to the Constitution for a balanced budget that did not repeal the formal statutory law signed by President Bush, section 13301 of the code of laws of the United States. Under the Budget Act, it would not repeal that law but provide, of course, for a balanced budget. Specifically, Mr. President, if you looked at Section 7, under Senate Joint Resolution 1, that we debated for a month, you can see that all outlays and all revenues be included of the U.S. Government. And that repeals, if you please, that section of the code, which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I am trying to save time for my colleagues. And I ask also unanimous consent that the record vote that occurred on October 18, 1990, a vote of 98 to 2, approving that Social Security protection be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, Mr. President, I am reading, of course, from my proposed constitutional amendment--and it is important that this reading be made formal here--that ``outlays of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, as and if modified to preserve the solvency of the funds used to provide Old Age, Survivors and Disability benefits, shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for the purpose of this article.'' There is no question, Mr. President, that the intent of the Congress is in that particular regard. Very recently, on November 13, I believe it was, we voted just exactly that particular instruction. On November 13, by a vote of 97 to 2, we voted to instruct the conferees on the budget that Social Security trust funds not be used. So the Senators themselves have affirmed that less than a month ago. I ask unanimous consent that rollcall vote be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask also unanimous consent that the record of the Budget Committee vote on July 10, 1990, on the protection of Social Security be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. The reason I do that is so that you shall know how Members vote--not just how they speak but how they cast their formal votes. There has been raised, at the particular time back in February, the idea, of course, that the trust funds need not be protected further, that we could always do it by statute. I ask unanimous consent at this particular point that the letter from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service dated February 6, 1995, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. There are two sentences I will read again, trying to save time. ``If the proposed amendment was ratified''--that is, Senate Joint Resolution 1--``then Congress would appear to be without authority to exclude the Social Security trust funds from the calculations of total receipts and outlays under section 1 of the amendment.'' Then down at the bottom a footnote: ``Although the Congress is given the authority to implement this article by appropriate legislation, there is no indication that Congress would have the authority to pass legislation which conflicts with the provision of this amendment.'' So that is why it is very, very important to several on this side of the aisle--because we were in a very, very heated exchange relative, of course, to the particular balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And thereby on March 1, five of us on the Democratic side of the aisle sent a letter to the majority leader, Robert Dole, the principal author of Senate Joint Resolution 1, stating that we were ready, willing, and prepared to vote to pass the constitutional amendment to balance the budget where that Social Security protection not be repealed. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter dated March 1 be printed in the Record at this particular point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. So, Mr. President, it is quite obvious if the true intent is to really pass an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, it can be done here in the next 24 hours. There is no problem. It is a wonderful opportunity, because we have the amendment drawn in the proper fashion with two particular changes to Senate Joint Resolution 1. The one change, of course, was the Nunn amendment about the judicial power not to put balanced budget questions before the judiciary but to retain them within the congressional branches; and, second, of course, to reiterate the statutory law protecting the Federal old age and survivors insurance trust fund and federal disability insurance trust fund. Why do I read those words out so specifically? With an intent, Mr. President. Again, referring to the balanced budget constitutional amendment report by the Committee on the Judiciary over on the House side, you will find in that report this sentence: Since Congress possesses the legislative authority to change the Social Security program, specifically referring to ``Social Security'' in the Constitution could create a giant loophole allowing Congress to call anything Social Security and thus evade balanced budget requirements. This particular amendment presented for the vote of my colleagues here does not use ``Social Security'' expressed. On the contrary, it is the technical formative law of the United States of America that passed in 1935 and up until 1969 was a trust fund and off budget. That was our point that we were making in 1990. We were obscuring the size of the deficit. In fact, Mr. President, it would be well at this particular point, I believe, to include, if you please, a table of the various deficits. I have before me a table of the deficits for the years beginning in 1945 going all the way down, the U.S. budget in outlays and trust funds, the real deficit, the gross Federal debt and the gross interest cost under the various Presidents. From 1945 until 1996, we have gone from outlays of $92,700,000,000 to now outlays for this fiscal year 1996 of $1,602,000,000,000. You can see how it has grown like Topsy. I remember the last balanced budget. To bring it into the perspective of the distinguished Chair, when Johnson balanced the budget back in 1968-69, the entire outlay in 1968- 69 at that particular time was $178,100,000,000. Can you imagine, $178,100,000,000 for guns and butter, for the war in Vietnam and for the Great Society. And paid for with what? With a surplus at that particular time of $300 million. That is--no. That $300 million was used from the trust fund. I am looking at the statute in error here. Let me look at it accurately. So $300 million was used from the trust funds. That still left a balance of $2.9 trillion. If trust funds were not used really to balance that budget, we had a surplus of $3.2 billion. Here was an entire budget for the Social Security, Medicare, guns and butter, war in Vietnam, defense, and all, welfare and all the other programs. We are expending, instead of the $178 billion, we are expending $348 billion this year just on interest costs for nothing. There is the real problem. And that problem is obscured in large measure by the use of Social Security trust funds, exactly the opposite as contended by my colleagues in that particular House report. For example, Mr. President, look at the Judiciary Committee report of a balanced budget constitutional amendment as submitted at that particular time over on the House side in January--on January 18 of this particular year. And here is the sentence that will blow your mind. ``If we exclude Social Security from balanced budget computations, Congress will not have to make adjustments elsewhere in the budget to compensate for the projected deficit.'' If you have got that kind of logic and thought, we need custodial care for the Members around here. ``If we exclude Social Security from the balanced budget computations, Congress will not have to make adjustments elsewhere in the budget.'' Come on. If we exclude Social Security, that is where we will have to make adjustments elsewhere in the budget to compensate. And that is exactly the point that we have been trying to make time and time again that we seem to try to hide behind. The truth of the matter is, we are hiding this minute behind $481 billion owed Social Security. If the particular budget now in conference and now in negotiation between the White House and the Congress is enacted in the next 10 minutes, by the year 2002, we will owe Social Security $1,117,000,000,000. In other words, in the year 2002, they could well turn and say, ``Whoopee, we have now preserved and protected Medicare.'' And then when we look around at Social Security, we say, ``Heavens above, we have run it into the hole with over $1,117,000,000,000.'' Who is going to raise taxes $1 trillion? Who is going to cut benefits $1 trillion? That is why I have been trying to get attention of my colleagues that we have truth in budgeting. And that is why we have the amendment drawn at this particular time where people on both sides of the aisle--I voted for a constitutional amendment, cosponsored it with my senior colleague back in the 1980's, voted for it several times. But when I realized the import of section 7 under the Dole Senate Joint Resolution 1 that it was going to repeal the statutory law that I helped cosponsor, along with Senator Moynihan and Senator Heinz, I could not go in two different directions at the same time. As a person somewhat experienced in budgets, I was able, as Governor back in 1959, to get the first AAA credit rating for our State. I participated in the balanced budget work of 1968-69. I chaired on behalf of the Congress, both Houses, the first reconciliation budget conference, the first reconciliation bill signed into law where we cut back already appropriated funds in December 1980 under President Carter. And I put in the budget freeze. I have cosponsored, with Senators Gramm and Rudman, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings initiative. And I have been very alert, as possibly as I can be, to make certain that we have truth in budgeting. And so it is that we have now proposed this particular amendment. I could go on at length as to the debate itself before I present the amendment. I have this one particular phrase of our majority whip, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. In February, on national TV, Senator Trent Lott stated, and I quote: Nobody--Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate--is even thinking about using Social Security to balance the budget. Let us hope that is the truth. I think a vote on this particular constitutional amendment to balance the budget would give truth to that particular statement. We will see exactly how they vote. Amendment No. 3095 (Purpose: To propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution)

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have another amendment. Let me send this one up under the unanimous-consent agreement and ask the clerk to report. I think I have explained it.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again, by way of emphasis, it is word for word Senator Dole's House Joint Resolution 1, with the exception of the Nunn amendment which is included therein with respect to the limitation on judicial power on balanced budgets and, second, the Dole section 7, the language that would encompass a repeal of section 13301 of the Budget Act. Specifically, I repeal the repeal. I have provided and continue the protection of 13301. Amendment No. 3096 (Purpose: To propose a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution)

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there is another wonderful subject we have debated ad nauseam, except with respect abortion. This is one you can really do something about if you really want to limit spending in campaigns as one cancer to public service. Ask the 12 Senators now retiring. They would agree in a sentence, Mr. President, that the one cancer to public service is money, and if you want to control the money, then let us get back to the 1974 act as intended. There never was any dispute at that particular time. I remember the history well. It so happened in the 1968 race of President Nixon that he had thereafter a Secretary of Commerce, Maurice Stans, who went around and allocated almost like the United Fund: Your fair share. He came to South Carolina to the textile industry and said, ``Your fair share for the Nixon campaign is $350,000,'' and so textile entities gathered up $35,000 apiece and sent it to Washington to qualify. Other individuals gave a half million dollars. A gentleman from Chicago gave $2 million. It was thereafter that Secretary of Treasury Connally came to President Nixon and said, Mr. President, there have been substantial contributions made in your behalf and you have not had a chance to even meet some of them, much less thank them personally. I would like to give a barbecue on the ranch down in Texas where you can meet and thank them. President Nixon thought that was a wonderful idea, and on that particular weekend, as they turned into the Connally ranch, there was a Brinks truck with that prankster Dick Tuck from the Kennedy campaign. They had that all embellished in the news and newspapers and otherwise, and everybody in Washington said, ``Heavens above, the Government is up for sale. We have to do something about it.'' So in good spirit, both Republicans and Democrats joined hands into the Federal Elections Campaign Practices Act of 1974. At that particular time, we said, ``Look, every dollar in and every dollar out is recorded. You cannot give more than $1,000. You cannot, as a PAC, give more than $5,000. You cannot take cash.'' And, for voters in a particular State like Tennessee and South Carolina, we were limited per registered voters. In South Carolina, I remember we were limited to around $600,000. The last race I ran for reelection, in 1992, was $3.5 million. It goes up, up, and away. Right now, every Senator every week has to collect at least $13,000. If you have not collected your $13,000 for your campaign 6 years out, you are behind the curve. You are behind the curve. That statement ought to embarrass all in America. We have had for 20 years, like a dog chasing its tail around this place, every kind of fanciful idea about how to give public moneys, most of it coming from Common Cause who will not listen. They have a PAC. Most PAC's give money. Common Cause gives you a fit. They have no idea of giving up their particular power, and so they will not go along with limiting the actual expenditures. Oh, we had the opportunity back in 1988. A majority of Senators voted for that one-line constitutional amendment: ``Congress is hereby empowered to regulate or control expenditures in Federal elections.'' With that one line, we can get back to the original intent of 1974 and actually limit spending. That was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and everyone realizes the then distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Jim Buckley, thought otherwise. He sued the Senate and Secretary Valeo. Under the Buckley versus Valeo decision, anyone of good mind and spirit would say this is the most flawed decision ever raised. Why do I say that? The Buckley versus Valeo decision of the U.S. Supreme Court equated money with speech. If you thought you had the freedom of speech, you would certainly have the freedom of money. And you are exactly right, if you are rich, you have that freedom. But if you are poor, you do not have it, because they immediately went on with the limitations. More particularly, Mr. President, you can take away your opponent's speech if you are affluent and the opponent is not. Specifically, if your opponent has $50,000 and you have $1 million, you wait until October 10 when people finally get their minds and attention on campaigns, getting ready for the election, then you fill up the airwaves, both radio and TV, the billboards, the yard signs, the newspaper advertising. And by November 1, a week ahead of the election, your family will ask, ``What is the matter, aren't you interested? You are not even answering.'' You do not have the money to answer. You can take away the speech. It is the worst decision that you can possibly think of, particularly in light of the Constitution itself. If you read article I, section 4 of the Constitution--and I will read just exactly this: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators. So, if we have the power at any time by law to alter the manner, it appears to this particular Senator we certainly can take the most grievous practice we have in this land of money in politics and put a control on it. We control the time, the place, the components of a candidacy and otherwise, and you can go on down the list. Mr. President, I rise today to address a problem with which we are all too familiar--the ever increasing cost of campaign spending. The need for limits on campaign expenditures is more urgent than ever, with the total cost of congressional campaigns skyrocketing from $446 million in 1990 to well over $590 million in 1994. For nearly a quarter of a century, Congress has tried to tackle runaway campaign spending; again and again, Congress has failed. Let us resolve not to repeat the mistakes of past campaign finance reform efforts, which have bogged down in partisanship as Democrats and Republicans each tried to gore the other's sacred cows. During the 103d Congress there was a sign that we could move beyond this partisan bickering, when the Senate in a bipartisan fashion expressed its support for a limit on campaign expenditures. In May 1993, a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolution was agreed to which advocated the adoption of a constitutional amendment empowering Congress and the States to limit campaign expenditures. During the 104th Congress, let's take the next step and adopt such a constitutional amendment--a simple, straightforward, nonpartisan solution. As Prof. Gerald G. Ashdown has written in the New England Law Review, amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate campaign expenditures is ``the most theoretically attractive of the approaches- to-reform since, from a broad free speech perspective, the decision in Buckley is misguided and has worsened the campaign finance atmosphere.'' Adds Professor Ashdown: ``If Congress could constitutionally limit the campaign expenditures of individuals, candidates, and committees, along with contributions, most of the troubles * * * would be eliminated.'' Right to the point, in its landmark 1976 ruling in Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court mistakenly equated a candidate's right to spend unlimited sums of money with his right to free speech. In the face of spirited dissents, the Court drew a bizarre distinction between campaign contributions on the grounds that ``* * * the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption outweighs considerations of free speech.'' I have never been able to fathom why that same test--the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption-- does not overwhelmingly justify limits on campaign spending. However, it seems to me that the Court committed a far graver error by striking down spending limits as a threat to free speech. The fact is, spending limits in Federal campaigns would act to restore the free speech that has been eroded by the Buckley decision. After all, as a practical reality, what Buckley says is: Yes, if you have personal wealth, then you have access to television, you have freedom of speech. But if you do not have personal wealth, then you are denied access to television. Instead of freedom of speech, you have only the freedom to shut up. So let us be done with this phony charge that spending limits are somehow an attack on freedom of speech. As Justice Byron White points out, clear as a bell, in his dissent, both contribution limits and spending limits are neutral as to the content of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of the political speech in general. Mr. President, every Senator realizes that television advertising is the name of the game in modern American politics. In warfare, if you control the air, you control the battlefield. In politics, if you control the airwaves, you control the tenor and focus of a campaign. Probably 80 percent of campaign communications take place through the medium of television. And most of that TV airtime comes at a dear price. In South Carolina, you're talking between $1,000 and $2,000 for 30 seconds of primetime advertising. In New York City, it's anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 for the same 30 seconds. The hard fact of life for a candidate is that if you're not on TV, you're not truly in the race. Wealthy challengers as well as incumbents flushed with money go directly to the TV studio. Those without personal wealth are sidetracked to the time-consuming pursuit of cash. The Buckley decision created a double bind. It upheld restrictions on campaign contributions, but struck down restrictions on how much candidates with deep pockets can spend. The Court ignored the practical reality that if my opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a race and I have $1 million, then I can effectively deprive him of his speech. By failing to respond to my advertising, my cash-poor opponent will appear unwilling to speak up in his own defense. Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in on this disparity in his dissent to Buckley. By striking down the limit on what a candidate can spend, Justice Marshall said, ``It would appear to follow that the candidate with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a significant head start.'' Indeed, Justice Marshall went further: He argued that by upholding the limitations on contributions but striking down limits on overall spending, the Court put an additional premium on a candidate's personal wealth. Justice Marshall was dead right. Our urgent task is to right the injustice of Buckley versus Valeo by empowering Congress to place caps on Federal campaign spending. We are all painfully aware of the uncontrolled escalation of campaign spending. The average cost of a winning Senate race was $1.2 million in 1980, rising to $2.1 million in 1984, and skyrocketing to $3.1 million in 1986, $3.7 million in 1988, and up to $4.1 million this past year. To raise that kind of money, the average Senator must raise over $13,200 a week, every week of his or her 6-year term. Overall spending in congressional races increased from $403 million in 1990 to more than $590 million in 1994--almost a 50- percent increase in 4 short years. This obsession with money distracts us from the people's business. At worst, it corrupts and degrades the entire political process. Fundraisers used to be arranged so they didn't conflict with the Senate schedule; nowadays, the Senate schedule is regularly shifted to accommodate fundraisers. I have run for statewide office 16 times in South Carolina. You establish a certain campaign routine, say, shaking hands at a mill shift in Greer, visiting a big country store outside of Belton, and so on. Over the years, they look for you and expect you to come around. But in recent years, those mill visits and dropping by the country store have become a casualty of the system. There is very little time for them. We're out chasing dollars. During my 1986 reelection campaign, I found myself raising money to get on TV to raise money to get on TV to raise money to get on TV. It's a vicious cycle. After the election, I held a series of town meetings across the State. Friends asked, ``Why are you doing these town meetings: You just got elected. You've got 6 years.'' To which I answered, ``I'm doing it because it's my first chance to really get out and meet with the people who elected me. I didn't get much of a chance during the campaign. I was too busy chasing bucks.'' I had a similar experience in 1992. I remember Senator Richard Russell saying: ``They give you a 6-year term in this U.S. Senate: 2 years to be a statesman, the next 2 years to be a politician, and the last 2 years to be a demagog.'' Regrettably, we are no longer afforded even 2 years as statesmen. We proceed straight to politics and demagoguery right after the election because of the imperatives of raising money. My proposed constitutional amendment would change all this. It would empower Congress to impose reasonable spending limits on Federal campaigns. For instance, we could impose a limit of, say, $800,000 per Senate candidate in a small State like South Carolina--a far cry from the millions spent by my opponent and me in 1992. And bear in mind that direct expenditures account for only a portion of total spending. For instance, my 1992 opponent's direct expenditures were supplemented by hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures by independent organizations and by the State and local Republican Party. When you total up spending from all sources, my challenger and I spent roughly the same amount in 1992. And incidentally, Mr. President, let's be done with the canard that spending limits would be a boon to incumbents, who supposedly already have name recognition and standing with the public and therefore begin with a built-in advantage over challengers. Nonsense. I hardly need to remind my Senate colleagues of the high rate of mortality in upper Chamber elections. And as to the alleged invulnerability of incumbents in the House, I would simply note that more than 50 percent of the House membership has been replaced since the 1990 elections. I can tell you from experience that any advantages of incumbency are more than counterbalanced by the obvious disadvantages of incumbency, specifically the disadvantage of defending hundreds of controversial votes in Congress. I also agree with University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, who has suggested a doctrine of sufficiency with regard to campaign spending. Professor Sabato puts it this way: ``While challengers tend to be underfunded, they can compete effectively if they are capable and have sufficient money to present themselves and their messages.'' Moreover, Mr. President, I submit that once we have overall spending limits, it will matter little whether a candidate gets money from industry groups, or from PAC's, or from individuals. It is still a reasonable--``sufficient,'' to use Professor Sabato's term--amount any way you cut it. Spending will be under control, and we will be able to account for every dollar going out. On the issue of PAC's, Mr. President, let me say that I have never believed that PAC's per se are an evil in the current system. On the contrary, PAC's are a very healthy instrumentality of politics. PAC's have brought people into the political process: nurses, educators, small business people, senior citizens, unionists, you name it. They permit people of modest means and limited individual influence to band together with others of mutual interest so their message is heard and known. For years we have encouraged these people to get involved, to participate. Yet now that they are participating, we turn around and say, ``Oh, no, your influence is corrupting, your money is tainted.'' This is wrong. The evil to be corrected is not the abundance of participation but the superabundance of money. The culprit is runaway campaign spending. To a distressing degree, elections are determined not in the political marketplace but in the financial marketplace. Our elections are supposed to be contests of ideas, but too often they degenerate into megadollar derbies, paper chases through the board rooms of corporations and special interests. Mr. President, I repeat, campaign spending must be brought under control. The constitutional amendment I have proposed would permit Congress to impose fair, responsible, workable limits on Federal campaign expenditures. Such a reform would have four important impacts. First, it would end the mindless pursuits of ever-fatter campaign war chests. Second, it would free candidates from their current obsession with fundraising and allow them to focus more on issues and ideas; once elected to office, we wouldn't have to spend 20 percent of our time raising money to keep our seats. Third, it would curb the influence of special interests. And fourth, it would create a more level playing field for our Federal campaigns--a competitive environment where personal wealth does not give candidates an insurmountable advantage. Finally, Mr. President, a word about the advantages of the amend-the- Constitution approach that I propose. Recent history amply demonstrates the practicality and viability of this constitutional route. Certainly, it is not coincidence that all five of the most recent amendments to the Constitution have dealt with Federal election issues. In elections, the process drives and shapes the end result. Election laws can skew election results, whether you're talking about a poll tax depriving minorities of their right to vote, or the absence of campaign spending limits giving an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates. These are profound issues which go to the heart of our democracy, and it is entirely appropriate that they be addressed through a constitutional amendment. And let's not be distracted by the argument that the amend-the- Constitution approach will take too long. Take too long? We have been dithering on this campaign finance issue since the early 1970's, and we haven't advanced the ball a single yard. It has been a quarter of a century, and no legislative solution has done the job. The last five constitutional amendments took an average of 17 months to be adopted. There is no reason why we cannot pass this joint resolution, submit it to the States for a vote, and ratify the amendment in time for it to govern the 1996 election. Indeed, the amend-the-Constitution approach could prove more expeditious than the alternative legislative approach. Bear in mind that the various public financing bills that have been proposed would all be vulnerable to a Presidential veto. In contrast, this joint resolution, once passed by the Congress, goes directly to the States for ratification. Once ratified, it becomes the law of the land, and it is not subject to veto or Supreme Court challenge. And, by the way, I reject the argument that if we were to pass and ratify this amendment, Democrats and Republicans would be unable to hammer out a mutually acceptable formula of campaign expenditure limits. A Democratic Congress and Republican President did exactly that in 1974, and we can certainly do it again. Mr. President, this joint resolution will address the campaign finance mess directly, decisively, and with finality. The Supreme Court has chosen to ignore the overwhelming importance of media advertising in today's campaigns. In the Buckley decision, it prescribed a bogus if-you-have-the-money-you-can-talk version of free speech. In its place, I urge passage of this joint resolution, the freedom of speech in political campaigns amendment. Let us ensure equal freedom of expression for all who seek Federal office. Mr. President, we have the Committee on the Constitutional System. I will read the first sentence by the distinguished chairman at the time, Lloyd N. Cutler: Along with Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas and Mr. Douglas Dillon, I am a cochairman of the Committee on the Constitutional System, a group of several hundred present and former legislators, executive branch officials, political party officials, professors, and civic leaders, who are interested in analyzing and correcting some of the weaknesses that have developed in our political system. I will skip over some just to read the conclusion on the third page. I ask unanimous consent that the entire testimony of Lloyd Cutler be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I read this sentence on the third page: Accordingly, the Committee on the Constitutional System has come to the conclusion that the only effective way to limit the explosive growth of campaign financing is to adopt a constitutional amendment. Mr. President, I take the position--for those who are interested in the Bill of Rights and the first amendment and the freedom of speech-- that the Supreme Court erroneously amended the Constitution, or deteriorated the value and worth of the freedom of speech under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So what we are trying to do is not treat lightly, by any manner or means, the Constitution or amendments. Others will get up and say we have had 3,564 amendments offered and here comes another. Not at all. We have tried in Congress after Congress after Congress, for over 20- some years now, to correct this particular flawed decision of Buckley versus Valeo, and get back to controlling spending in politics. The one way to do it is take the amendment that I have, which I will send to the desk. This amendment would provide the authority for both the United States and the several States within their particular jurisdiction, because it was asked to be amended accordingly at the time we debated it last, on how the States also ought to have this particular authority. The last 10 amendments to the Constitution--their time for ratification has been 20 months. There is no doubt in this particular Senator's mind that this could easily be ratified next November 1996. Then the Congress could come back and they could get to this bundling problem, this third party problem, and they can get to all the little tricks in politics, national committees, individual committees, and everything else of that kind, and we can legislate the honest intent of a majority of Democrats and Republicans in a former session, getting back to what we intended in 1974. We said on the floor of this body that you cannot buy this election anymore. Instead, under Buckley versus Valeo, that is the only way. We have a candidate right now for President who has never run for anything, and he has one idea about the flat tax that will give himself a tax cut, and he is buying up $25 million of airwaves in the Republican primaries. That would ordinarily be an embarrassment. The fact that it is accepted has embarrassed this particular Senator. We have to get away from that kind of nonsense. Just because you are rich and you can buy up time and you have never even been in a campaign, and others have been in there 2, 3 years, you can get up there in 2 months and run No. 2--just by money? A flat tax is no unique idea. Come on. So that is what is occurring. We ought to all be embarrassed, and we ought to jump at the chance of correcting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. That was easy composure. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 10 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand 20 minutes were reserved for the Senator from Arkansas which have been yielded back, so I yield 10 minutes of that time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me thank the distinguished Senator. I now will yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will yield to my colleague first I think for his unanimous-consent request. Has the unanimous-consent request already been made?

Mr. HOLLINGS. I believe it is 2 hours to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, 2 hours for this Senator on this side, 2 hours for the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], and 20 minutes for the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. My good friend, the distinguished Senator, has been so generous. I hasten to add I am not leaving. It would be most appropriate here for me to tell of my admiration in one sense, but then they would say it is tit for tat. I have served under Senator Byrd as leader; I have served under him as our chairman. He is the one remaining in the U.S. Senate who maintains the decorum, the dignity, the civility that is so fundamental to the good working of this body. So to hear from him on this occasion--I join with him in congratulating our distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his difficult and hard work. I have apologized in the sense of not being able to vote for the bill, but I think that is understood in the light of the constraints and what has been contained therein. But let me genuinely thank my good friend. You make some good friends in this service here. And there is none better than my friend, Bob Byrd, the Senator from West Virginia, and I really thank him.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.