Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Very good.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will go along with the suggestion of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. What happened, two or three Senators wanted to be heard, but we only have 3 minutes if they got here. Is it the point to yield the remainder of our time, make the motion, get the yeas and nays? Is that it?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I think it is fundamental that we all understand that this movement with respect to the development of our technology came about at the same time that we were trying to get conversion programs in the Defense Department, including start-up funding for many of the extension centers in this particular program. In fact, we actually got as NIST Director Dr. Arati Prabhakar, one of the top managers who had worked with Craig Fields over at DARPA, and NIST is now taking over the funding of 37 DOD-started extension centers that help small firms that are no less attuned to civilian purposes rather than to military purposes. If this little amendment is knocked out, and some $25.6 million, is rescinded, as originally proposed in the bill, then what you have left is only $65 million to support a total of 44 centers, plus any new centers for other States. There is a cutoff period of 6 years also in this program that I forgot to emphasize. These centers come up with at least 50 percent of the cost to begin with and over the years we have an ever diminishing amount by the Feds and an ever increasing amount by the sponsoring State along with the industry. They take over these extension centers. By way of comparison, it should be shown that this past year, where we had some $91 million in these centers and now, if we lose $25 million, we would end up with only $65 million. You can compare that to the $439 million budget this year of extension program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a figure that does include research or the cooperative education programs; to NASA with an aeronautical research and assistance budget of $882 million; and the Department of Energy, where there is another $3.315 billion for civilian energy research. And what we have is a very restricted program, run on a peer-review basis, of $91 million. We are trying to restore the proposed cut by using unobligated balances within the same NIST budget. I also emphasize at this particular time, Mr. President, before yielding as much time as is necessary to the Senator from Connecticut, that I would like to read just one sentence from the 1992 Senate Republican defense conversion task force. This was a very outstanding group of some 14 Republican Senators, including the Senator from Kansas, now the majority leader, and many others here, without reading out their names. I read the language: The task force endorses two programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology as important to the effort to promote technology transfer to allow defense industries to convert to civilian activities. These programs are the Manufactured Technology Program and the Advanced Technology Program. That is exactly what we have been doing. This has been bipartisan from the very beginning. It has worked very well. There is no pork and there is no industrial policy with the Government picking winners and losers. I yield as much time as he needs to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. I do appreciate his support.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, Mr. President, what galls my friends on the other side of the aisle is that the President of the United States did not give them a ball to run with this year. They thought the President might want to be harassed again and would propose another multibillion- dollar plan. Why go through that act again? Instead, he understandably said, ``If you have a better way to do it, you do it.'' But rather than doing it, they come here with the false representation that the President of the United States has done nothing about Medicare. In so doing, the Republicans are making a feeble attempt to justify the enormous Medicare cuts that will be part of the Republican plan. But we have seen their record on preserving the Medicare Trust Fund. One of the major proposals in the Contract With America would repeal recent changes in Social Security and would result in bankrupting the Medicare trust fund. If there is any movement around town to really make sure that Medicare goes broke quicker than 2002, it is to be found in the Contract With America. The pundits on the weekend programs need to tell the American people the truth, namely that the entire contract is eyewash. Like a hurricane, as we learned down home, you just have to let it blow on through. When all fanfare and fireworks are over, it does not create one single job, and it does not pay one single bill. It is all symbols and no substance. Unfortunately, the media treats the entire Government like spectator sport up here, finding out who is on top, and who won this particular vote, without focusing on the long term to find out where we are headed. Mr. President the inference I took from the comments I heard earlier was that the President was not being responsible. In fact, it is we members of the Budget Committee who have not been responsible. The law that says by April 1 the budget should be reported out of the Senate Budget Committee and by April 15 it is supposed to become law. Here it is April 5. The Budget Committee has not even started its work on the budget resolution and, yet we are running around with tables, charts, contracts, and hoopla. All symbols, no substance; all process, no product. In December, Mr. Kasich, chairman of the House Budget Committee, told us on ``Meet the Press'' that we were going to have three budgets. In addition, we were going to have spending cuts and put them in the bank before we got any tax cuts. Mr. President, we do not have the spending cuts, but in the House today, they are voting on tax cuts. And where are the spending cuts that they promised? In January I put in the Record a list of spending cuts and an illustrative glide path to balance the budget by the year 2002. (Ms. SNOWE) assumed the chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. We computed that you had to have at least $37 billion in cuts to put us on that glidepath of Government in the black by the year 2002. That does not take into measure any tax cuts. You are going to lose another $189 billion over 5 years, if the House succeeds with their tax cut. I was asked earlier this morning about the tax cut. I said, ``A tax cut really means a tax increase.'' They said, ``That is doubletalk. What do you mean?'' I said, ``You have to think it through. The first thing your Government did this morning at 8 o'clock was go down to the bank and borrow 1 billion bucks and add it to the debt.'' That is interest costs. They should more appropriately be called interest taxes in that they cannot be avoided. We are adding it to the debt which is now rapidly approaching $5 trillion bucks. Gross interest costs now total $339 billion and, with rising interest rates, it will soon surpass $1 billion a day. Thus, if you care to have a tax cut for the middle class, you have in reality burdened the middle class by increasing interest taxes and driving ever skyward, the Federal debt. The contract is a political exercise designed to make it look like we are thinking about the middle class when in reality we are depriving the middle class. You are doing it to them, not for them, when you pass that tax cut. I cosponsored a bill earlier this year, along with the Senator from Wisconsin, saying that we oppose the tax cuts would rather any savings be used to reduce the deficit. I am glad the Senate now has gone on record to that effect. I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to have printed in the Record at this point, dated January 23, the truth in budgeting proposal.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am glad that my distinguished colleague, the Senator from New Mexico is still on the floor. If I got the message of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, it is that President Clinton is not doing anything while Medicare is going broke. Mr. President, that is about as topsy-turvy as you can get it. the truth of the matter is that Presidents Reagan and Bush were the ones who did nothing while we spent ourselves blind. It was the Congress-- Republicans and Democrats--who overwhelmingly voted for the Reagan tax cut in 1981. This particular Senator, Senator Mathias, and Senator Bradley were the only ones to vote against those tax cuts and also vote for the spending cuts. We were trying to hold the line and pay the bill. At that particular time, we did not have hundred billion dollar deficits. We had suffered during the 1970's when the impact of the OPEC cartel sent our country into a recession. In response, we had an economic summit with President Ford, and eventually worked our way down to a $57 billion deficit when President Reagan took office. But after the Reagan tax cuts, we saw the first $100 billion and the first $200 billion deficit. Then, under President Bush, we saw the first $300 billion deficit. Before he left town, if you didn't use the surpluses in the trust funds to mask the size of the deficit, the red ink rose to over $400 billion. So President Clinton did not cause this problem. What did he do about it? Very admirably, he came to town and put all his political cards on the table, saying that you cannot get on top of this deficit unless you control health care costs. In his first budget as President recommended cuts in Medicare and Medicaid which the Senate adopted to the tune of $63 billion. Every Republican voted against these cuts. The distinguished occupant of the chair was not here. He may have been over on the House side where we did not get a Republican vote either. In the Senate, the Vice President had to break the tie. The President then followed up with his health care package containing additional Medicare and Medicaid reductions that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Moynihan, labeled as ``fantasy.'' At the time Republicans took great pride in attacking the President, but to his credit he stuck to his guns. Mr. President, the purpose of my rising this afternoon is to remind my colleagues of that piece of history. If the chairman of the Budget Committee wants to stand on the floor of the Senate with a big chart showing the deficit going up, let us remember that President Clinton did not start that line up. We did, long before the gentleman from Little Rock, AR, even came to town. Indeed, before President Clinton arrived the line would be even steeper. Against all of this criticism of the President for ``taking a walk'' or ``waving the white flag,'' I want to get right to the heart of my rub with the chairman of the Budget Committee. I read: ``accepts the President's proposed reductions in the Medicare program and indexes the current $100 annual part B deductions for inflation. Total Medicare savings would reach $80 billion over the next 5 years.'' That is the chairman of the Budget Committee, outlining the ``GOP Alternative Deficit Reduction and Tax Relief Plan,'' just last April. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct that the vessel Yes Dear, official number 578550, be accorded coastwise trading privileges and be issued a certificate of documentation under section 12103 of title 46, United States Code. The Yes Dear was constructed in Hong Kong in 1976, and the vessel is a wooden trawler. It is 53.6 feet in length, 15 feet in breadth, has a depth of 6.5 feet, and is self-propelled. The vessel was purchased by R. Milledge Morris of Beaufort, SC, who purchased it in 1991 with the intention of chartering the vessel for short sailing tours. The vessel was in disrepair, and Mr. Milledge has spent a considerable amount of time, effort, and resources in repairs. However, because the vessel was built in Hong Kong, it did not meet the requirements for coastwise license endorsement in the United States. Such documentation is mandatory to enable the owner to use the vessel for its intended purpose. The owner of the Yes Dear is seeking a waiver of the existing law because he wishes to use the vessel for charters. His desired intentions for the vessel's use will not adversely affect the coastwise trade in U.S. waters. If he is granted this waiver, it is his intention to comply fully with U.S. documentation and safety requirements. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing is to allow the Yes Dear to engage in the coastwise trade and the fisheries of the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for what he is talking to now of fundamental programs that constitute investments--not spending--to save spending, to eliminate deficits. If there is one misgiving that we have with the ongoing exercise of the Contract With America --and it is good to bring in a new group and have a tonic, to turn our attention to where savings can be had--but in the zeal to try to bring about certain savings there is a mix of arrogance and more or less mob action pellmell for hell, let us just cut it all, everything, without any idea of what really saves money and what costs money. For instance, for every dollar spent on women, infants and children feeding we save at least $3. For every dollar spent on Head Start we save $4.75. For every dollar spent on title I education for the disadvantaged we save another $6.50. And having experienced government over the years, I have learned what saves money. For example, I had a problem 25 years ago with my own State on the subject of hunger and feeding. I had made a mistake as Governor. I had not paid too much attention to the hungry. In fact, a rejoinder had been given to me by my friend, the senior Senator, ``Well, there was hunger and the hungry in the days of Christ, and there will be hunger in the days after we are long gone, and it is almost a given.'' Not so. Not so at all. At that time, I met and studied with those in the medical profession and in the nutrition discipline--Dr. Neville Scrimshaw at Harvard, Dr. Cravioto at Cornell, later at Columbia University, and Dr. Charles Upton Lowe, the chairman of the Committee on Nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics at that particular time. They had found that every adult has 13 billion brain cells in the cortex, and 10 billion of the 13 billion develop in the first 5 months in the mother's womb. However, there is as much as 20 percent less cellular development of those brain cells resulting from the lack of nutrition, the lack of synthesis of those nerve cells, and the lack of protein. It is much like taking a television set off the desk here and dropping it on the floor, putting it back here, and turning it on. The hundreds of wires of circuitry do not join, do not connect. And in the field of brain medicine, they call that organized or general brain damage. That child is stultified in the first 5 months in the mother's womb and comes into this world with organic, or generalized, brain injury, lacking an ability, if you please, to concentrate, to assimilate, to be educable in the fullest of senses. So I joined with Senator Humphrey after he came out of the Vice Presidency back into the Senate. I was not on the Agriculture Committee at that time. But we talked of this problem that we had in women, infants, and children's feeding. We found out that if we rendered protein supplements for expectant mothers, which now cost in the vicinity of around $400 over the 9-month period, we could save practically $30,000. I just visited in the university hospital in my own hometown, the Children's Hospital at the Medical University of South Carolina. They had some 85 low-birth-weight infants. In my early days they would have been unaccounted for and lost; little low-birth-weight infants of 1\1/ 2\ pounds, 2 pounds, 2\1/2\ pounds. They had nurses around the clock. I will never forget it. It cost some $15 million to keep some 85 nurses going around the clock treating those little infants. The average stay for a low-birth-weight infant on that incubator in intensive care is 30 days at $1,000 a day, or $30,000. So this is not a sick call by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for liberal spending programs. This is a studied investment by liberals, conservatives, Republicans, and Democrats alike to spend now to save billions later. That is the one misgiving I have about this so-called Contract With America because its proponents have no sensibility. They come here on the first day and all of sudden they have wisdom. Without any experience or a day in public service whatever, never having listened and learned anything, in a fell swoop they come in with across-the-board so-called spending cuts that actually will cost us billions. Mr. President, when that baby comes in as a low-birth-weight infant, like it or not, it is yours and mine. We are going to take care of it in some children's hospital, in some intensive care unit, and for the wealthy parent or the poor, that cost is really going to the general public. So we need to stop these penny-wise, pound-foolish cuts to preventive programs. We should never think in terms of tax cuts here for billionaires who have made their wealth in America and then renounce their citizenship in order to avoid taxes. It is almost a treasonous kind of activity in this Senator's mind and never should be dignified or recognized in law as a worthy project when we are going around cutting spending. I am for cutting spending. I am for freezing spending. I am for closing loopholes, and I am for taxes. I have challenged this body and all Senators to give me their realistic budget plans since January. I will never forget the distinguished chairman on the House side of the Budget Committee, Congressman Kasich. On December 18, 1994, on a national TV program he came on and said, ``Don't worry about it. We don't care what the President puts in. We have three budgets before us. We are going to introduce them. But before we have tax cuts in January we are going to have the spending cuts and have this budget.'' Well, it is now April. It is going to be May or June before they get around to specifying their cuts. I met that particular challenge in January. I worked with the best of minds. I have introduced a list of cuts in the Congressional Record at least four times by now that shows that in order to get on a glidepath of balancing the budget by the year 2002, you have to cut $37 billion in domestic discretionary spending in the first year. Even with those reductions, the interest cost rises faster than the cuts. That is the only good, solid, credible attempt I have seen to show the kinds of cuts that are necessary, and I do not think I could vote for them all. And cuts of even this severity would require 7 years to reach a balanced budget. I remember when President Reagan came to town. He said he was going to balance the budget in 1 year. Then, after he got in town, he said, ``Oops. This is way worse than I thought. It is going to take me 2, maybe 3 years.'' So the Budget Committee started submitting 3-year budgets. Then by the mid 1980's, the committee said ``Whoops, it got worse. We are going to have 5-year budgets.'' Now they have 7-year budgets. And I can tell you, after a few more years, they are going to have 10-year budgets. It is like a football game where they keep moving the goalpost. A sincere effort to balance the budget will not cut out basic investments that save money in the long run. Realistically, it is going to take taxes as well as spending cuts, spending freezes, and loophole closings. I think the Senator from Massachusetts has really brought a sobering moment to this body that allows us to understand that the proposals before us do not save money. Oh, the national media, lazy as they are, are running around saying that this rescissions bill has so much in spending cuts, and they can tell you, when you consider the costs to Medicaid, to the hospitals, to the schools, to the workplace and the economy, and on down the line, you will find that the proposed cuts actually increase spending. This is the lesson of those children at the medical university. So I hope we can listen to this debate and understand that the Senate is not just in a race to get so many marks on the so-called Contract With America or whatever it is. It is a serious job of trying to cut back on overall spending while investing in programs that will save money in the long run. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, This amendment, on behalf of myself and Senator Biden, would restore some of the funding in the Department of Justice's Drug Court Program. The House-passed bill and the committee- reported bill both rescind $27.1 million from drug courts. My amendment reduces the rescission to $17.1 million, and allows $10.0 million for the program this year. Last week Attorney General Janet Reno sent me a letter expressing her strong support for the Drug Court Program and her desire to have this funding restored. I ask unanimous consent that her letter, in its entirety, appear in the Record. This Drug Court Program is funded through the violent crime trust fund. We already cut all discretionary programs last year to make offsets for this program and other crime bill programs. But, now here we are considering a bill that eliminates funding for a crime reduction, antidrug program--and here I am proposing yet additional offsets to pay for the program a second time. Mr. President, Members might wonder why the House is trying to eliminate this program. Why? Because drug courts always was a Senate- sponsored program. It was included in the Senate version of the crime bill and was supported on a bipartisan basis. And, frankly, I don't understand why the Appropriations Committee would want to concur in their rescission. Mr. President, we have a crime problem in this country caused by drugs. Just 2 weeks ago, DEA Administrator Constantine testified before the Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee about the rise in drug- related crime. More than half of those arrested who enter the criminal justice system have some level of substance abuse problems. Our criminal justice system functions like a revolving door in which drug offenders continue to pass through. Drug courts are designed to specifically deal with this inherent problem in our criminal justice system. Drug courts employ the coercive power of the court to subject nonviolent offenders to the kind of intensive supervision that can break the cycle of substance abuse and crime that infects too many communities in this country. These drug courts require mandatory periodic drug testing, mandated substance abuse treatment for each program participant, and graduated sanctions for participants who fail to show satisfactory progress in their assigned treatment regimens. All this is under the direct supervision of drug court judges. I believe many Members met with these judges in the last few weeks, two drug court judges were in my office recently to speak on behalf of this program. Both Judge Jeffrey Tauber of Oakland, CA, and Judge Steven Ryan of Las Cruces, NM, stressed that drug courts are not a ``Washington knows best program.'' It is a locally determined program, every drug court is different and unique. Mr. President, I think we now have one of the best Attorney Generals we've ever had, and I have known a lot of them. She's tough and understands law enforcement. Janet Reno came up through the ranks. She really believes in this Drug Court Program and knows from her experience in Dade County, FL, that it works. My amendment lets her prove the program's worth and get it off the ground. The amendment's offsets are simple. The amendment proposes rescinding $5 million of the unobligated balances in the Justice Department's working capital fund. This account funds ADP equipment, accounting systems, administrative support, and law enforcement related equipment. I know justice has various things they want to reprogram dollars for; saving the drug court program is a high priority. The only reason these balances are in the fund is because of language the Congress put in the bill 3 years ago that enabled Justice to recapture expiring balances. Second, the amendment proposes a rescission of $5 million from unobligated balances in the Justice assets forfeiture fund. These funds are excess to annual requirements and were not expected to be spent in the current year. It will not impact any State or local law enforcement participation in the assets forfeiture program. So, what we are trying to do in this amendment is to strike a balance--to make minor reductions in two Justice accounts--to save at least $10 million for drug courts. We should give Attorney General Reno a chance to prove this program's worth instead of simply amendment is fully offset. I urge its adoption. I ask unanimous consent a letter from Attorney General Reno be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 427

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, there is one word that comes to my mind, I say to the Senator from Louisiana, and that is character. Certainly, Howell Heflin is an individual with the highest of integrity and, yes, humor. But it has to be said, I am glad the Senator from Louisiana did not continue on about Howell's humor, because most of those stories could not be told on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We should all remember his work on the Ethics Committee and the outstanding job that Howell Heflin did as chairman. It is a very thankless task. The idea of any kind of farm legislation and, as the Senator mentioned earlier, anything concerning peanuts. sure the peanut farmers are taken care of. In addition, we have been blessed with his incredible expertise as a member of the Judiciary Committee. We know him as a former chief justice, the most outstanding of the State chief justices, elected so by his own confreres. At international conferences, he has supported the United States in Europe and NATO with tremendous distinction. But in addition to honoring his outstanding record, let me just dwell on two things: First, I traveled the State of Alabama during the Presidential race some 10 years ago. And in my travels, I found out was that Howell Heflin is a common man of uncommon abilities. He knows everybody in that State. I can tell you, he is not leaving because he cannot get reelected. That fellow could walk back in here. The rest of us have to fight our way. Incidentally, I am not joining you two at all. I am fighting to stay here. But Senator Heflin knows them all. He knows every element of that society. He has never outgrown--being a chief justice or U.S. Senator-- his humble beginnings in Tuscumbia. That always impressed me, because I met with people in every county in that particular State and every particular group, from the legislature to the Governor, down to the civic organizations and the defense organizations at Huntsville, where Howell has been a leader. But I want to emphasize his message here. I am quoting what he just said: We foster democratic principles. Throughout the world scene, democracy has made great strides in many nondemocratic countries. Yes, our own democracy faces its greatest threat from within. Elected officials, media personalities, elements of political parties, and other organizations strive to pit one group of Americans against another. We must set a new course in this Congress and across the land, a course of moderation, tolerance, responsibility, and compassion. When I first got over here, we were seated on those last two seats. I was seated next to Bobby Kennedy. We had better seats in ``My Fair Lady.'' We were voting, and I got a tap on the shoulder. I looked around, and it was the senior Senator from Kentucky who was tapping me on the shoulder. He said, ``Fritz, change that vote, change that vote.'' I said, ``John, what do you mean?'' He said ``Well, they got a lot of horsemen there in South Carolina, and I know many.'' He said, ``That would be a bad mistake. They like you, and I would hate to see you get in trouble with them.'' John Cooper had come all the way around the Chamber. He had a seat way on the back of the other side and had come over to this side. The tremendous change that Senator Heflin has emphasized here in his announcement of departing is certainly noteworthy. In these times, it seems as if we meet in ambush every Tuesday to get the other side. A perfect example of what I am talking about can be seen by focusing on what happened with the line-item veto. I have sponsored line-item veto legislation for some 10 years. I have a bill, S. 238, that was referred to the Rules Committee just this year. The Republicans had an intramural between themselves over two different rescission bills, and when they worked out a compromise, they had basically settled on my bill. It is in the Rules Committee, a separate enrollment line-item veto. But I never claimed that on the floor of the Senate. I was afraid that the partisanship was so violent that some would vote against it if they heard that my name was even connected with the blooming thing. It has gotten that bad. I think in this distinguished statesman's departure, he is emphasizing an awfully important thing--American industry and catching up with the global competition. We have learned, in quality production, that the best way to compete is to have the lowest elements involved in production and working in teams. I have seen the Japanese, and have come to see that teamwork in individual industries in my own State of South Carolina. Industry now has learned how to get quality production. The political body has gone totally in the other direction, with no idea of working together. Who can get whom? Who can get on the 7 o'clock news? Who can catch the other fellow? And whatever else it is. The legislation that we spew out shows it. It is not quality. It is not production. Howell Heflin has left us a most important message. I will not read all of it. I know others here are waiting. But our distinguished colleague was president of the Alabama State Bar Association. He was selected the Most Outstanding Appellate Judge in the United States in 1976. He served his chairman of the National Conference of Chief Justices; was a member of the college faculty at William & Mary, the University of Alabama, and the University of North Alabama. He received the Outstanding Service to Science Award from the National Association of Biomedical Research; National Veterans Award; the Henry Jackson Senate Leadership Award; the Justice Award and Harley Award, American Judicature Society; the Wernher von Braun Space Award; the James Madison Award of the National Broadcast Editorial Association; 12 honorary degrees. The Senator from Louisiana is exactly right. If I had to answer this nonsense of term limitations--which incidentally is included in the U.S. Constitution, but seems like a new idea--I would answer it with two words. ``Howell Heflin.'' I thank you for that expression. That is exactly what I have in mind. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I hope he will stick with me on the line-item veto and not table it under that same logic. Now, with respect to germaneness, I happen to have a record that was generally respected as the presiding officer at the State level, and having come to the U.S. Senate, I spent my 28 going on 29 years trying to forget parliamentary procedure. I will never forget when I first presided and I got two Golden Gavel Awards--200 hours. We used to start the Presiding Officer about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. The distinguished Senator from Oregon, Wayne Morse, would get up and characterize the President of the United States, who had just been lauded with respect for his muscle power in getting things done, President Lyndon Johnson. He would refer to him as a murderer, and that would go on from about 5 o'clock until about 9:30 or 10 o'clock each evening, with respect to the war in Vietnam. But I immediately recognized someone who first rose to be recognized. That is the fundamental parliamentary rule in all bodies in the world, save this one. Here you recognize the majority leader. You could have been out here for 3 hours or 2 days, whatever it is, sitting in your seat, and stand to be time comes to the door, forget about you. Under the rules of the Senate, you recognize him. In that light, I had the duty of trying to forget rules, but I never forgot the one of germaneness. I refer specifically here to the short title ``The Separate Enrollment and Line-item Veto Act of 1995,'' which I hope to amend. Under the section 5 subsection (a) I refer, the term ``targeted tax benefit'' means any provision estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation as losing revenue within the period specified in the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Now, that is amending section 301 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974 and specifically the title with respect to within the periods specified. So, it is a limited one with respect to the overall subject--namely, a line-item veto for the President--but with respect to the general subject of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, it is definitely germane. With respect to ``within the period specified in the most recently adopted concurrent resolution'', that is what my amendment is amending so that budgets hereafter will be subject to that 10-year rule. So on both points, I will ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona to reconsider and rejoin his Republican leadership of approximately a year ago. I again read from the document ``Fiscal Year 1995 Senate Budget Committee Republican Alternative'', prepared by the Republican staff of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee and presented last year by none other than the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici of New Mexico. If we turn to the second-to-last page, it has ``Miscellaneous provisions.'' Fiscal year 1995 Republican budget resolution, ``miscellaneous provisions,'' description and the first bullet there, ``Strengthens the 10-year pay-as-you-go point of order while the 10- year pay-as-you-go point of order that was established by last year's budget resolution is determined does not currently apply to budget resolutions and could be repealed by a subsequent budget resolution. This proposal would make future budget resolutions subject to this point of order.'' They talk about partisanship. I am delighted to get bipartisan here today on not only the line-item veto, which I have been trying for 10 years. It was a bipartisan initiative back in 1985, and was rightly quoted as such by the distinguished majority leader said earlier this week. He referred to the Hollings-Mattingly line-item veto, that we had a pretty good healthy vote on in 1985. Mr. President, let me also ask that the distinguished ranking member of our Budget Committee, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, also be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chair. I will read the opening paragraph (b) here entitled ``Exclusion of Social Security From Congressional Budget.'' Let me repeat that: The law, the law itself, three readings in the House, three readings in the Senate, signed into law on November 5, 1990, by President George Herbert Walker Bush. 98 to 2. And they talk about flip-floppers. Here is the law: Exclusion of Social Security from congressional budget. Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding the following: ``The concurrent resolution shall not include the outlay and revenue totals of the Old Age and Survivors Disability Insurance established under title XXII of the Social Security Act and related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.'' In other words, not include as part of outlays and revenues. Along comes the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, voted on in this body just a few weeks ago, and section 7 says: Total receipts shall include all receipts and shall include all outlays of the United States Government. A positive, affirmative repeal of section 13301. Now you go right to how this comes out in the press. In Time magazine, in a summary at the conclusion of a cover article--a March 20 copy, it said: So long as the crisis is not about to burst next month, Democrats will see political profits in portraying any proposal to change Social Security as a Republican conspiracy to starve the poor and elderly. Republicans will think the only defense is to swear eternal fealty to the system as it is. They treat it as demagoguery. They treat it as just a political thing. Here is the cover article; never once do they cite section 13301. They never once cite the law. When we passed those Social Security taxes back in 1983, it was definitely understood that we were not just balancing the Social Security budget, but the affirmative intent was to provide surpluses to make the Social Security fund fiscally sound into the middle of the next century. At a previous time, I inserted a letter from former Chairman Ball of the Social Security Commission. His letter said the Social Security fund is not in any fiscal trouble, it has surpluses, as it appears by the fund. But as it appears by the political treatment by the news media and by Members of this particular body and by President Clinton and the administration, it is a political slush fund. I quote the distinguished majority whip, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, on ``Face the Nation,'' Senator Trent Lott said on February 5: Nobody, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate is even thinking about using Social Security to balance the budget. Do I have to invite him into the Republican caucuses so that he can understand what they are thinking because those thinkings are finally oozing out into the Record. On ``Larry King Live'' around that time, Senator Gramm said, and I quote: I think we ought to balance the budget counting Social Security first, and then if we want to balance it without counting it, do it second. So they are thinking about using it either first or second, according to the Senator from Texas. I quote again the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici: You can't leave the biggest American program off budget. It is off budget. The law says it is off budget. Here is the leader of fiscal responsibility in the U.S. Senate in contradiction to the law saying you cannot leave it off budget when the law requires it be off budget. And then, of course, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley: The leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate have promised not to touch the Social Security retirement program for at least 5 years. Well, 5 years; that means maybe after that then, but they are thinking about Social Security. Or the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, and I quote: Without access to the Social Security surpluses, you would create a much higher hurdle in trying to balance the budget. Mr. President, we are not talking about hurdles, we are talking about truth in budgeting. I remember the saying of Mark Twain. He said that truth was such a precious thing it should be used very sparingly. Is that the credo that we are going to use in the for budget laws in the U.S. Senate? Or the distinguished majority leader on February 5, Senator Dole: I also believe that we can't keep Social Security off the table forever. Now, Mr. President, they are thinking about it. And, in fact, yesterday, Tuesday, March 21, reported on page A4 of the Washington Post, Senator Packwood, the chairman of the Finance Committee said: ``But in considering budgets,'' nothing is sacred, including Social Security and other entitlement programs.'' How do you do it? You can do as the Speaker of the House says: If we cannot get what we want out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we will give it to Treasury, we will give it to Federal Reserve, we will give it to somebody to get it right. One entity they are going to give it to get it right may be the new Director of the Congressional Budget Office. I do not have the exact quote here, but I know it is accurate. She said she could be using dynamic scoring when she has to. Ah, now you get in a CBO Director who uses dynamic scoring. Added to that, instead of a CPI of, let us say of 4 percent, you get one of 2 percent. But what we should understand, Mr. President, is that any savings in Social Security from changing the CPI should be put back into the reserves, back into the trust fund. People say it is going to be difficult to really meet the target of reducing spending $1.2 trillion by the year 2002. But that, in and of itself, is an inaccurate figure because they are using Social Security moneys. To really balance the budget you need $1.7 trillion; saying otherwise means that you are contemplating using the surpluses that the trust funds will take in over the next 7 years. But let me get back to my amendment. You can well see that we are trying to get back to truth in budgeting under this particular Hollings-Kerrey-Exon amendment. It was endorsed last year by the Republican Members of the Budget Committee under the leadership of our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, when they included that in their Republican alternative. Now, it all of a sudden becomes untimely this year? I do not know what committees the distinguished Senator from Indiana is on, but you can bet your boots whatever committee, it has a 10-year rule. If you are on Agriculture, if you are on Interior, if you are on Banking, if you are on Commerce, if you are on Indian Affairs, wherever it is. The Finance Committee faced up to it with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; we had a 10-year rule that created a 60-vote point of order requirement on that vote. But for the budget resolution, you do not have to live under the restrictions of the 10-year rule. I am trying to get truth in budgeting. I am trying to get the very custodians of fiscal responsibility here to come under the same rules. The very first bill that we passed here in January was to make Congress comply with the laws that everybody else has to follow. It was a very good initiative. Well, why not follow the same logic? The 10-year rule promotes fiscal responsibility. It promotes truth in budgeting. Nevertheless, it was voted down in the Budget Committee on a partisan vote of 12 to 10 and Members come to the floor now to say, ``Let's just go along with the Budget Committee.'' Well, Mr. President, if we are going by that logic I should point out another amendment that I offered in the Budget Committee. In addition to the 10-year rule I offered a separate enrollment line-item veto, the very kind of measure now under consideration, but only got 4 votes, all from Democrats, in the Budget Committee. Under that logic, we would not be voting on the underlying bill. Let us not table. Let us adopt this amendment. Let us send it to the House and to the President for his signature. The President of the United States favors the line-item veto. I am sure that if he were asked whether he favors truth in budgeting, his answer would be ``yes.'' Then let us give it to him. If you want to really get it done, let us not think and hide behind procedure and process. Let us get the truth in budgeting and make sure that the 10-year rule applies to the budget resolution as it applies to all other legislation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with him being a cosponsor, I go back to that vote. We had the line-item veto up in the Budget Committee. My particular introduction of the line-item veto already in this session is now resting in the Rules Committee. I have had it before in the Budget Committee. In fact, I had a successful vote in 1990 of the line-item veto out of the Budget Committee by a vote of 13 to 6. Now, I want to one more time elaborate so it is clearly understood what is happening here with respect not only to the line-item veto and referring to future generations as the Senator from Arizona just previously did, but what we have done in order to try and secure the Social Security of future generations. Along this line, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point a very short title of ``Off-Budget Status of OASDI Trust Funds,'' section 13301(b). I want to print this in the Record at this particular point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask the sincere reconsideration by the distinguished Senator from Arizona on his motion to table our amendment. What happened, Mr. President, is that we brought it up dutifully before the Budget Committee. It was not approved, as has been pointed out. But, having done that, now is the time. If we do not do this now, which is relevant to the budget resolution, if we do not do it now, then what we really are going to do is avoid truth in budgeting because the next time we really sit down to consider the budget, we will be considering it under the old rules. So it is very appropriate and, incidentally, more so than perhaps the underlying amendment. The distinguished Senator from Arizona said, ``Wait a minute, now; he had his vote and he lost.'' He did not refer to the other vote I lost, namely, the line-item veto. The present bill under consideration is the substitute measure. On the rationale of my distinguished colleague, we ought to table the whole bloomin' line-item veto.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona, and the distinguished Presiding Officer. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerrey of Nebraska be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have been in the vineyards for a long time on that line-item veto. I used it 35 years ago when the distinguished occupant of the chair, I think, was the highway commissioner for the State of North Carolina. That was back when we were working in tandem, North and South Carolina, on bringing economic recovery to both of our wonderful States. I had to use a line-item veto in order to get the triple A credit rating, because I knew nobody was going to invest in Podunk. They were not going to come to a State that was not paying its bills. We used it very effectively then, and I have always thought it is fundamental in fixing responsibility and in creating accountability. We can look at the Contract With America and get a good sense of what I'm talking about. There is the capital gains tax that we all know about. That has been estimated by the Department of Treasury, of course, in the first 5 years to lose only $28.4 billion, but over the next 5 years, $91.9 billion. So you can see the losses accelerate markedly and that should be considered by those who favor the capital gains tax. We are not talking about rich and poor and who is or isn't getting a tax cut, but rather, to the contrary, whether we have truth in budgeting. The second item, one that has been favored by the former Secretary of the Treasury and former chairman of the Finance Committee, the former Senator from Texas, Senator Bentsen and others, is the IRA's, the individual retirement accounts. What they term now as the American dream savings account. We are getting now like the Defense Department with the Brilliant Pebbles and Sparkling Light and all these kinds of nonsensical designations. I wish we would cut out our dreaming up here and start work. The American dream savings account, well that is an IRA, an individual retirement account. Yes, for the year 1995 to the year 2000, that would gain revenue. That is a revenue picker-upper. That is income. That is increasing the revenue to the Federal Government by a tune of $3.8 billion. But then you look at the next 5 years, it loses $21.8 billion. And then they have one with respect to the schedule of depreciation allowances. The distinguished occupant of the chair, being a very successful businessman, understands depreciation allowances, and how you can get accelerated recovery. They have a provision that is now before the Ways and Means Committee and before our Finance Committee that is called neutral cost recovery. Whenever they say neutral, look out. That means that it is not neutral, I can tell you that. You just learn from hard experience, when they get these fancy words. For the first 5 years, 1995 to the year 2000, that picks up revenue at $18.4 billion, but for the years 2000 to 2005, it is scheduled to lose $120 billion. If we look at the total cost of the Contract With America we can see that the estimated cost over the first 5 years is $188 billion, but for the second 5 years, the Federal Government loses $630.2 billion. This is not truth in budgeting. That has been the hard experience now of over 20 years of the Budget Act with respect to the measure. We thought last year we had done a good job and we saved money. Then we come up and we say, ``Oops, instead of cutting spending, we have increased it. Instead of recouping revenues, we have cut the revenues.'' And we are all out of balance again. That is how you get $200 and $300 billion deficits on into the next century. It has to stop. One big way and most assured way, Mr. President, of stopping that would be to get truth in budgeting and adopt this 10-year rule. Now, I want to refer to the 10-year rule, because I said momentarily that I was not referring to it to score political points. Unfortunately, we have taken to partisanship in this body, and it is unfortunate. We do not have the comity that we used to have when I first came here to the Senate. But it is important to stress where the idea for my amendment comes from. In the fiscal year 1995 Republican budget resolution that was submitted by the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee just last March, I refer to their miscellaneous section No. 1 and description and I now read word for word. of order. While the 10-year pay-as-you-go point of order that was established by last year's budget resolution is permanent, it does not currently apply to budget resolutions and could be repealed by a subsequent budget resolution. This proposal would make future budget resolutions subject to this point of order. That was the particular provision of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that they submitted. I tried to offer it in committee. The Budget Committee met and we had discussions, but we were told at the time, ``Let's not take it up on S. 4. Let's not take it up on S. 14, but have it later.'' Well, we have not had a scheduled markup. And I think that this amendment, if offered in reconciliation, would require the 60 votes because of the Byrd rule. But we need it; it would bring truth in budgeting to budgets, as well as other legislation before us. So I hope that they can join, as they indicated they wanted to and indicated in various sessions that I have been with them. And I know the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is dedicated to truth in budgeting. This would be a perfect way to make it permanent for all budget resolutions. In the upcoming budget resolution, we are going to need spending cuts, we are going to have to have spending freezes, and we are going to have to close particular loopholes. And in this particular Senator's opinion, it is going to require additional revenues in order to do what we all say we are going to do; namely, in a 7-year period bring us back into the black and put us on a pay-as- you-go basis. It is going to be quite a task. And do not underestimate the power of Congress to be creative. We can do away with departments, get into capital budgets, get into sale of capital assets, the power grid out west and everything else. But that is just a one-time savings; it does not really bringing us into balance. They can get into using Social Security. They say they do not want to use Social Security, but, very interestingly, very interestingly, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee said on Tuesday, March 21--and I will quote from page 4 of an article. Senator Packwood said: Nothing is sacred including Social Security and other entitlement programs. If the chairman of the Finance Committee is thinking in terms of using Social Security then we really are in a pickle. We hear of plans to reestimate the CPI, but if that is to occur, it should be reestimated in a technical fashion and not a political fashion. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reviews the CPI every 10 years. It is my understanding that we are due for another recomputation of the Consumer Price Index in 1998. We can do it in 1995. Suits me, as long as it is done in the same technical fashion, and not done in a political fashion. The reason I refer to that ``in a political fashion,'' is simply that I have a quote from the distinguished Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. I refer to a release on January 16, 1995, and I quote: House Speaker Newt Gingrich threatened Saturday to withhold funding from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. which prepares the CPI each month, unless it changed its approach, at a town meeting in Kennesaw, GA. The Reuters News Service reported that Gingrich said: We had a handful of bureaucrats who all professional economists agree, have an error in their calculations. If they can't get it right in the next 30 days or so, we zero them out. We transfer the responsibility to either the Federal Reserve or the Treasury and tell them to get it right. If I was over in Treasury, or wherever, and he transferred it to me because they had not gotten it right, I think I could get it right because, if not, I might get zeroed out. So let Congress go along with an accurate estimation, a statistical estimation, a professionally done estimation and not a political estimation. Therein is some of the creativity, whether using the CPI, or the $636 billion from Social Security that they can pick up by using Social Security under the language of House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. They are just absolutely determined to repeal section 13301 of the Budget Act, that law that was signed into law by President George Bush on November 5, 1990. If we all sing from the same hymnal and the same sheet music we will get truth in budgeting with this particular amendment. What we will do is apply the same law that we have applied toward everyone else in the Government. If you are on the Agriculture Committee, you are subject to the 10-year rule. If you are on the Finance Committee with GATT, you are subject to the 10-year rule. If you are a member of the Appropriations Committee, you are subject to the 10-year rule. Interior, Commerce, go right on down the list. But the very crowd that put in this 10-year rule for everybody else says, ``By the way, not for us.'' I just do not think that is right. I do not think it is honest in that regard. I think we ought to get honesty, get truth in budgeting and put it in there with respect to the budget resolutions, as well as all the other permanent provisions, that 10-year rule was so eloquently endorsed by the Senate Budget Committee Republican alternative just a year ago. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this amendment pertains to budget resolutions. In the budget resolution passed last year, there is a provision that states that: . . . for the purposes of this applicable time period-- Referring to whether certain legislation is deficit neutral. and under section 23, on a point of order, 23 (b)(2): For the purposes of this subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means any one of the following periods: The period of the 5 fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget, or, (c), the period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5 years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget. And for the purposes of that particular definition, the term ``direct spending,'' or ``receipts,'' shall include any bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, to which this subsection otherwise applies, (b) excluding concurrent resolutions on the budget. Now, we have a 10-year rule for all legislation save the budget resolution. Specifically, Mr. President, on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we had a 10-year rule. In fact, it so happened that the President of the United States got this Senator personally on the telephone and asked if we would waive that rule, and I said ``no''. I had gone along with my distinguished chairman, Senator Domenici, of the Budget Committee. It was a fundamental issue that we look at revenue losses over a 10-year period. The reason for that is very apparent once we focus on certain provisions in the Contract With America. I am not just talking politically, because politically, I favor some of the items in the contract. I favor, for example, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, if Republicans would only put in there what they say, that it is against the law to use Social Security funds for the deficit. If they would only put that provision in there, they have myself and four other Senators. We can pass the balanced budget amendment this afternoon, or any time. We are ready to go. But I want to talk about the line-item veto. I support the line-item veto and have established a record in my efforts over the last 10- years. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my record be printed in the Record at this particular point.

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

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

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on the subject of a line-item veto, let me say that I want to join with those who believe that we should fix responsibility. Specifically, we have been trying over many years to do just that. Back in 1990, we reported out of the Budget Committee, by a bipartisan vote of 13 to 6, S. 3181, my separate enrollment line-item veto bill. Unfortunately, we were never able to see it enacted. I joined later with the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Senator Bradley in extending this mechanism to wasteful tax expenditures as well as appropriations. We had a 53 Senators support us in 1993, but budget rules at the time would have required 60 votes. I say fix the responsibility in the sense of fixing it to a single Member of not only 100 here, but 435 on the other side of the Capitol; one in 535. I can put an amendment to any particular measure and, if I get a majority vote, it passes. I think the President of the United States ought to be able to put up an amendment, so to speak, with respect to the denial of a particular item and get a vote; namely, two- thirds to override what he may have disapproved of. So often, the President will come, as President Reagan did during his 8 years in office, with a big stack of books and papers. He would say, ``Now look. Congress has given this to me at 12 o'clock last night, and I had to either sign it immediately or close down the Government the next day.'' If my memory serves correctly, President Reagan vetoed only one spending measure at the very beginning of his first term. Thereafter, there was almost a working agreement between the Congress and the President of what was veto bait and what would be approved by the President. In conference, the conferees would say, ``We will have to leave these things off.'' As a result, there was a sort of comity between the White House and the Congress that those vetoes were not necessary. I suspect the case was much the same with President Bush. However, I should note that in his 4-year period, our past President never vetoed one red cent of spending. He never vetoed a spending bill. So it was not really a thing that was causing so much a culture of costliness, as my distinguished friend from Missouri was previously referring to, but in the public's mind, there was a cynical game being played in which neither the President nor the Congress was willing to accept responsibility for spending money on certain programs. Mr. President, I used the line-item veto 35 years ago as Governor of South Carolina. It was very, very helpful to this particular Governor, at that time receiving a AAA credit rating, which I am sorry to observe at this particular time has been lost. But this Governor was the first southern Governor from Texas up through Maryland to get a AAA credit rating. I was proud of that. I could talk to my colleagues. I had the vetoes and used them to help balance the budget. But without a line-item veto, we are treated to spectacles similar to the flap over Lawrence Welk's home that occurred a few years ago. If I remember correctly, the distinguished former even realize that someone had stuck in money for Lawrence Welk's home. That was an embarrassment to both Houses of Congress, all the Congressmen and all the Senators. A line-item veto not only fixes responsibility but, more than anything else, saves the body from the embarrassment and the charge that we are willy-nilly passing pork-barrel projects. Now, with respect to the relinquishment of power, as the old saying goes down in my backyard, ``I studied my humility under the mental rules.'' You do not have to worry about the power of the Senator. In this day and age we have Senators who not only hold up the President but who hold up the whole Congress as well. You are not lacking power. If a Senator wants to put in Lawrence Welk's home, and he does not like the idea that the home has been vetoed by the President, he has plenty of opportunity to speak extensively if he pleases. But in the light of our fiscal dilemma, the present gamesmanship has to stop. I think it is unforgivable that we engage really in the procedures in the process rather than the substance. I remember my distinguished friend, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said on December 18 on ``Meet the Press'' that he was coming in January with all of the spending cuts before they came with the tax cuts, and that he had three budgets and did not have to wait on the President's budget. He said that we would start moving immediately in January. Of course, the House passed the tax cuts, and are yet to pass specific spending cuts. It is now getting toward the end of March and the Budget Committee has yet to meet to start marking up a budget. They tell us it will be sometime in May before we even begin. Mr. President, I hope the Record will reflect that at least this Senator thinks we ought to be getting to the substance. If I could digress for a moment back to the debate on the balanced budget amendment, I would like to refer one more time to section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act, wherein a line says: Thou shalt not use the Social Security trust funds in any calculation of budget deficits. I ask unanimous consent at this particular point to have printed in the Record the vote at that time, on October 18, 1990, where we got a vote of 98 to 2 in favor of section 13301.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the point of this particular article, of course, is in responding to the statement of the distinguished majority leader that we will call up the balanced budget amendment later this year. What the article plainly outlines it that we can call up the balanced budget amendment this afternoon and immediately pick up five votes if they only put in black and white what they say verbally. They say time and time again that ``We are not going to use Social Security funds.'' In fact, after the particular vote, the distinguished majority leader, on ``Face the Nation,'' said, ``We are not going to use Social Security funds.'' All we are asking for is to put that rhetoric into constitutional language. When Members on the other side of the aisle get into these demeaning antics of holding up signs depicting Senators as ``Wanted,'' like a rogue's gallery for flip-flopping, that, of course, is a double-edged sword. Maybe we should go out in front of the Capitol and get the pictures of the leaders on the other side who voted for the Hollings- Heinz amendment in 1990 and who now have flip-flopped. Mr. President, let me conclude this afternoon with a comment about a particular article. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.