Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will just read one sentence there, by the distinguished economist Robert Kuttner. In truth, even under pessimistic assumptions, Social Security will remain nicely in balance for at least the next 20 years. We have the authorities. We know what is happening. But they have used this argument that Social Security is insolvent as the dark ink of the octopus in order to confuse people. Congress is never going to do it unless you put it in the Constitution. False. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that I wrote last year entitled, ``From Tragedy to Farce'' which addresses this issue. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will try to move along so the distinguished Senator from West Virginia can be heard here. Mr. President, we need truth in budgeting. We should tell the American people that the big lie in the land is the slogan ``I'm against taxes'' because the simple fact is that we are raising taxes $1 billion a day through interest payments on the gross Federal debt. When the Simon amendment came up in 1993, I was not an original cosponsor, but I had supported the amendment in 1986. I voted for the Simon amendment believing at the time that the Hollings amendment passed in 1990 which took the Social Security trust fund off-budget excluded these funds from deficit calculations. When my amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 2, I believed, as similarly asserted by the distinguished majority whip, Senator Lott, that: ``Nobody, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate, is even thinking about using Social Security to balance the budget.'' But Mr. President, unbeknownst to me, just 13 days before the vote, Senator Gramm of Texas, who has been a leader on budget matters, introduced a bill to balance the budget. Later on in the year, I had my staff scrutinize it; they found this particular provision which I wish the Senator from Utah would listen to this: Exclusion from budget, section 13-301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: ``This subsection shall apply to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2001.'' I found this provision particularly interesting because back on July 10, 1990, Senator Gramm had been the lone dissenting vote when I introduced the Hollings amendment to take Social Security off-budget. I ask unanimous consent at this particular time that rollcall vote in the Budget Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Having voted against my amendment in the Budget Committee, having proposed to amend section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act, I said, ``Heavens above, I better start checking this thing.'' I soon recognized that the Constitution preempts statutory law, and that the amendment to take the Social Security Trust fund off- budget would be constitutionally repealed by the language of this balanced budget amendment. John Mitchell, the famous Attorney General of the United States under President Nixon, said, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' And what do they do? When I argue about these things, I go right to the author of that particular Simon balanced budget amendment. I refer to the Monday, February 20, roll call, by the distinguished Senator from Illinois and I quote: One paradox is that some Democrats during the Senate debate that is now underway are offering amendments that would imperil both the balanced budget amendment and Social Security by taking Social Security off the budget. These waivers are being offered in the name of protecting-- That is a true statement, they are offered to protect Social Security. * * * Sponsors of these amendments have an argument that is superficially popular. We are not trying to make it popular; we are trying to make it law. Opening a Social Security loophole in the balanced budget amendment also invites abuse by future Congresses undermining confidence in the integrity of Social Security. Now, my dear colleagues, who is opening a Social Security loophole? It is open right now. It is right there. What section 7 does is create the loophole. Whoever votes for this language is opening the loophole. ``Invites abuse by future Congresses.'' Mr. President, I am not talking about future Congresses. I am talking about this present Congress that is willing to abuse the Social Security trust now. I have told them time and time again, you have Hollings' vote if you put in the Social Security trust fund exemption. That is clear as a bell. They know it. But they think they have the votes. My distinguished colleague from West Virginia thinks otherwise. I hope he is right. My friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, and the former Senator of New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, of the Concord Coalition, are both on the Strengthening of America Commission and have put out a proposal to balance the budget. Remember John Mitchell. ``Watch what they do, not what they say.'' Here is what they say in their plan. I quote: The goal of the plan is to balance the unified budget without using the Social Security surplus by the year 2002. America would then be saving its Social Security surplus, helping to avoid a fiscal train wreck 25 years from now when the general fund must begin repaying the Social Security trust fund. Continuing to divert Social Security surplus to fund current spending instead of building up reserves for the future is bad fiscal policy and bad social policy. Mr. President, when the same gentleman took to the floor here last week and, he instead talked about including supplementary security income under the rubric of Social Security. He noted that under the law, SSI is administered by the Social Security group. True. However, he further claimed future Congresses might include SSI outlays as part of the Social Security trust fund. Now, we live in the real world. Any Senator who is fool enough to try and finance welfare with Social Security trust funds would make a quick exit from the political scene. They will not need a term limitation bill to be passed. He would be run off the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives. I do not believe he could get a single cosponsor or Senator to support him. But even if he did, he would have to get 60 of them because a 60-vote point of order would lie against such a change. I read here where the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire--and I read here from a release. It is reported about their particular news conference last week, talking about Senator Tsongas, former Senator Tsongas, and former Senator Rudman, and I am just reading the report. I will give you the quote. Both former Senators emphasized the need for Social Security to remain on the table in the budget cutting process. Now, that is the report. And here is the quote from Senator Rudman. ``To try to fool the American people by setting Social Security aside is delaying the inevitable,'' said Rudman, who added that protecting entitlement spending from cuts would result in the need for ``unworkable'' cuts in the nondefense discretionary spending and aid to state and local governments. Here again they raise the straw man. We are not talking about fooling anybody about the inevitable. We are talking about the fraud that is being exacted on the people of America, and particularly people paying into Social Security this minute. The young woman who is paying in now, her money will be spent under Section 7. Then when she gets eligible in the year 2020, 2025, they will have to tax her a second time. I quoted earlier from Senator Rudman. Let me now quote from the other co-founder of the Concord Coalition, Paul Tsongas, who was even harsher. And I quote: ``Those who vote to exempt Social Security are voting to kill the balanced budget amendment,'' said Tsongas, co- founder of the Concord Coalition and anti-deficit Group. ``They are putting their own reelection ahead of the future of their children and grandchildren.'' grandchildren? Anybody who votes for section 7 of the present balanced budget amendment joint resolution proposal, that's who. they are the ones, ``putting their own reelection ahead of the future of their children and grandchildren.'' I have worked in the vineyards for a long time trying to restore the discipline of a balanced budget in the U.S. Government. I obtained it at the State level. I voted for it in 1968-69 when we called over to Marvin Watson and we cut $5 billion more. Do you know the entire budget in 1968-69, for the Great Society, for the war in Vietnam, was $178 billion? Now we are up to $1.6 trillion. But we gave Richard Milhous Nixon not only a balanced budget but a $3.2 billion surplus. I got together with Senator Harry Byrd in 1978. We put into law the Byrd amendment which was later amended by the Reagan crowd. We took Social Security off-budget under President Bush, and now they are asking me to repeal that law by voting for section 7 of the balanced budget amendment. No way. The Social Security surplus is now almost $500 billion. By the year 2002 we are supposed to have a $1 trillion surplus. But instead, we keep spending it for foreign aid, for welfare, for all these other things that you can possibly think of in the budget except Social Security. Here is Robert M. Ball. I ask unanimous consent that this entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Mr. President, the 49er's did not go to the Super Bowl in Miami last month, take their seats in the grandstand there in the Joe Robbie Stadium, and start shouting, ``We want a touchdown, we want a touchdown.'' They got down on the field and they scored the touchdown. Similarly, we are the Government, and now it is our duty, our responsibility to act. When we tried to move the ball downfield 2 years ago with the largest deficit reduction package in our history, we could not get a single vote on the other side of the aisle in the House and in the Senate. Likewise, when those on the other side of the aisle start to criticize the President by saying--``Where's his courage? He's waving the white flag,'' it is truly the pot calling the kettle black. (Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me acknowledge my respect and friendship for the distinguished Senator from Utah. He has worked hard on this issue, but I rise today to speak out against the particular language in section 7 of the amendment that includes Social Security revenues in its definition of receipts. I have supported and would continue to support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution if we did not have to breach the contract of 1935 with respect to Social Security. Taking Social Security out of deficit calculations is not just another attempt to carve out exemptions. There are no special taxes for education. There is no special tax for women, infants and children feeding. There are no special taxes for law enforcement. However, the Social Security tax is exclusively levied for the benefit of future recipients. So the matter of excluding Social Security funds from deficit calculations should not be confused or distorted. In 1983 we received the Greenspan Commission report and increased FICA taxes on middle America. If we had come at that time and said: These taxes will be used to pay for defense or welfare or foreign aid, that legislation would have been killed immediately. If you said these taxes were going to be used for the deficit, people would have said: ``Wait a minute. We are talking about the Social Security deficit. We are not talking about the overall Government deficit.'' Mr. President, I voted three times for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and have worked as hard as anyone to get the bills paid. It has not always been easy, but I am quite willing to stand on my record. In the 104th Congress, the very first bill passed was designed to put the Government under the same rules and regulations that the average citizen has to abide by. In that regard, Mr. President, many of the laws that we enact here in Washington require Americans to tell the truth. As part of the statutes of the United States, we have the Truth in Fabrics Act, the Truth in Furs Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Lending Simplification and Reform Act, the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, the Truth in Negotiations Act for Military Procurement, the Truth in Savings Act, the Truth in Securities Act, and others as well. But, much to my chagrin, the fact of the matter is that we do not have a Truth in Budgeting Act. Like Fred Astaire, we tap dance all around a particular issue with fancy dance steps until we are left like an octopus that is cornered-- with nothing left to do but to squirt out the dark ink of confusion and escape to the next election. I graduated from truth in budgeting and I know the issue. As a young Governor elected back in 1958. I was only 36 years of age, and we were the second lowest per-capita income State. I realized at that particular time that no one was going to invest in Podunk. To attract investment and create jobs, we had not only to pay our bills but we had to guarantee they would stay paid. To do it, we raised taxes. I could hear all of the arguments bandied about: It falls on the middle class; it is the regressive; we have a poor State, and shouldn't be raising taxes. But I was not granted the luxury of choice. I had to raise taxes and suffer the consequences. That in part led to my defeat in 1962 when I ran for the Senate. But in public life, I think you ought to lose a good election like that. It is the most instructive lesson you can learn. I remember that election better than the six times since that I have been elected to the U.S. Senate. But as Governor of South Carolina, I had a little provision that intrigued the folks at Standard & Poors and Moody's. We had put in a rule that required the comptroller to issue a certificate to the Governor for each quarter that the expenditures were within the revenues. If the books were not in balance, the Governor was required by law to cut spending straight across the board. The bond agencies said, ``We had not heard of that.'' They called me a few weeks later and said that South Carolina would qualify for a AAA credit rating. While some may think that a constitutional amendment is an iron-clad guarantee, I know from hard experience that such is not the case. We have an amendment to the South Carolina Constitution that was enacted in 1895 that says, in effect, ``The budget shall be balanced.'' It was a constitutional provision quite similar to what we are debating, but it was honored more by violation than by conformance. Specifically, with respect to truth in budgeting, there is an old legal maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity. He who comes in the court of equity must come with clean hands. I have asked my colleagues to show me their plan to balance the budget. But in seeking this equity, I have also done equity. I have put in my own so-called budget, which I proposed in January. I have put it in the Record several times and would now ask unanimous consent that it again printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. This is dated January 5. He talked about the Kerrey- Danforth commission, the entitlement commission, and the entire letter will be printed but I refer to this sentence here. The commission did not find that Social Security benefits would have to be drastically cut or contribution rates greatly increased to bring the program into long run balance. Later on, I read again: Social Security is adequately financed for the next 20 to 25 years. I read on further: The point here is simply that the alarmist rhetoric used by some entitlement commission members about the need for major cutbacks in Social Security is completely unjustified. Then further on I read this sentence: The widespread belief that Social Security is contributing to the current budget deficit and has caused part of the rise in the national debt is just wrong. Mr. President, I will have the entire letter printed. Time is of the essence here. We have to move along. Robert Ball has worked under President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon and, after leaving there he has been the chief adviser to the Social Security Administration and to the executive branch--total credibility. I have another item. I ask unanimous consent this article in Business Week dated February 20 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Fred Stroble for his 33 years of truly exceptional public service as a law enforcement officer in South Carolina--including more than 23 years as a deputy marshal with the U.S. Marshals Service in Charleston. As the deputy marshal with the longest continuous service in South Carolina, Fred has been a superb marshal, a public servant whose career epitomizes dedication and loyalty. In all the years that I've known Fred, he has been kind and helpful to everyone, from hardworking citizens to the prominent people he has protected, such as the Reverend Martin Luther King, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William F. Reinquist, and Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall. Mr. President, Fred Stroble started his law enforcement career in January 1962 in Charleston as a walking patrolman with the city police department. He came to be known as the nice cop because of his compassion for people high esteem. After walking a beat for a year, he was assigned to the vice squad. In January 1964, Fred became the city of Charleston's and South Carolina's first African-American motorcycle patrolman. A year later, he was promoted to detective. In October 1969, he became the first African-American deputy sheriff for Charleston County. Fred left the sheriff's department for the Marshalls Service in January 1972. Since then, he has served with great distinction and honor. Anybody at the Federal courthouse in Charleston will tell you that no matter what has happened, Fred has been there to help. I, like many other leaders and judges across South Carolina, am grateful for his dedication over the years. If it were not for a requirement that made his retirement mandatory, I'm sure Fred would provide many more years of outstanding and professional service. Mr. President, Fred Stroble is held in such high esteem today because of the more than 30 years that he has helped people across South Carolina. I appreciate this opportunity to express my respect and gratitude, and to wish Fred many happy years of retirement, new challenges, and exciting opportunities.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I would like to accommodate the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. What happens is I have the Senator from Nevada on the way.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I enjoyed references to Senators and their votes. It is not necessarily Dale Carnegie's approach to winning friends and influencing people. I am in the business of trying to obtain votes. So I necessarily try my best to resist the record. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky made a record and he talks about the first time we amended the first amendment. Well, this is the first time an amendment would do it. Now, the fact of the matter is, on October 19, 1989, 5 years ago or a little more, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky voted with the majority--it did not get two-thirds--but the distinguished Senator from Kentucky voted to amend the first amendment with respect to burning the flag of the United States of America. I would be delighted to yield. I am looking at this record. If the record is incorrect, I would be delighted to yield.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the remainder of the time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in the process of completing the thought, to raise the kind of money necessary now in races the average Senator must raise over $14,000 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; a 50 percent increase in 4 short years. Mr. President, with $50,000-plate dinners, with $11 million evening fundraisers, it is going up, up and away. This amendment is not just spasmodic or spurious or unstudied. I went to the Parliamentarian, Mr. Dove, and asked if it would confuse a constitutional amendment on the balanced budget. He said the way I had it written it would be engrossed separately and be voted on by the States separately. Thereupon, I included language in the first section to make sure that it would not cause confusion and that it would be voted on separately. Of course, having agreed to the time--and I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer--the distinguished Senator from Kentucky having agreed to a time limit, I appreciated the time given. This certainly was not intended for delay. It is a serious amendment. It is a wonderful opportunity for all of us to say what we mean and mean what we say by voting in the affirmative for this amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Just in a few minutes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of the distinguished Lloyd N. Cutler before the Senate Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I enjoy serving with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. When he was going down the list of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Washington Post and all these liberal folks, he should not get too enthralled with this particular issue, because somebody will pick up that Record, the way they run campaigns now, and say he is running around with the ACLU. I could see that 20- second bite right now. I have a good friend. He wanted to contribute to me. He said he could get $5,000 from a group, and I said, ``Look, it will take me $50,000 to $100,000 to explain that group. I just cannot accept it.'' You have to look at elections. It is unfortunate, but that is what we are talking about. If you get it back down to where you have a limited amount in a small State like South Carolina of $1 million, the incumbent, I can tell you right now, is at a disadvantage, because I have a record of votes, thousands of votes. What I fear as an opponent is some nice, young, clean-cut law graduate, married, with two or three children and who has never voted on anything. All he has is a picture of himself going into church on Sunday. What am I going to argue about? I was lucky in my last race. I had a former Congressman as an opponent. I survived by the skin of my teeth because they zeroed in with lots of money and lots of TV. Money talks. Money talks. If we can start limiting that money in these campaigns, we will get it back to the people. The expenses are just absolutely unheard of. For example, the average cost of winning a Senate seat in 1980 was $1.2 million, but by 1984 it rose to $2.1 million, and by 1986 it skyrocketed to $3.1 million--this is the average--in 1988, to $3.7 million, and last year the average seat was $4.1 million. This past year Ollie North in Virginia spent $19.8 million. Senator Robb spent $5.4 million. Mr. President, $19.8 and $5.4 million--that's a total of $25.2 million. You can go down the list. I do not really want to make a public record because I know the sensitivities of Senators. Frankly, it is embarrassing what we all spend. I know my opponent, for example, spent just as much as I did and tried to report it differently. When are we going to correct this thing? Here is an opportunity to do just exactly that. We have a wonderful opportunity. Whatever the Senator from Kentucky says I want to consider it, because he and I have been on the same side against public financing: The public now contributing to politics. You would never get anybody out up here if that were the case. That is really where the incumbents can spend all their time prissing and preening and actually getting absolutely nothing done. In fact, that is the way we are. We are on a treadmill to make absolutely sure that nothing gets done. How much time do I have left?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HOLLINGS. He is on the way.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. The time is about up. I am sorry to have taken more time, but I wanted to get into the full measure of this thing. It is a bipartisan approach to restore free speech. What Buckley versus Valeo did is take away the speech of the poor and give enhanced speech to the rich. You know it and I know it. This amendment will put us back to where we were when the 1974 act was passed. It will limit spending in campaigns. That is what we all want to do. We did it in 1974, we thought, until the Buckley versus Valeo decision. I thank the distinguished Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the question is not whether it is a mistake. The question is whether it is a fact that a majority of the U.S. Senate, 51 Senators, duly elected and voting, voted at that particular time to amend the first amendment with respect to burning the flag of the United States of America. There have been other votes to amend the first amendment. Of course, we have had a majority vote on this amendment at least three times. The truth of the matter is, and the reality is, and the fact is, that the Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo amended the first amendment. I mean, after all, it was a 5-4 decision. If we get down to it we know that, yes, it limits spending, it limits speech. Speech is equated with spending. For those who have money, they can talk all they want. For those who do not, they do not have the freedom of speech. Those who do not have the money are limited. Of course, the Buckley versus Valeo decision found nothing wrong with limiting speech because they said the $1,000 was constitutional for an individual contribution; the $5,000 for political action committees was also constitutional. So everybody wants to act like we are making some kind of history and changing it around. When we had the other constitutional amendments affecting elections, they refer, of course, to the matter of elections on term limits. That is the 22d amendment. The 23d amendment, the electoral votes in Presidential elections. The 24th amendment, elimination of the poll tax with respect to voting. And the 26th amendment gave 18-year-olds the right to speak. Someone could give the same argument that 18-year-olds did not have the right to speak under the Constitution in elections. But then they were given the freedom of speech at 18 years of age. We are dealing with elections and campaign financing. It is totally a shame and disgrace. Absolute shame and disgrace. I will never forget the feel, politically, that you get in campaigns. I think it is very healthy, Mr. President, to go back on to the main street and walk up and down both sides and see the same merchants that you saw. You asked for their vote. You made certain promises, I guess, certain representations. You told them about your beliefs and what you stand for. You go out into the rural areas to the farmers. You visited around in the hospitals, the doctors, and everything else of that kind. That is the way we politic in the small State of South Carolina. Of course, it is totally impossible in large New York or large California. I am not contending that it is. But right after the last election in 1992, just a couple of years ago, I went around to each one of the counties and we had town meetings, and I made the call. My friends kept asking, they say, ``Why are you coming around? You just got elected. You got 6 years.'' And I said, ``I couldn't see you in the campaign. I didn't have time. I had to go raise money.'' On and on and on. It is just like a veritable treadmill you get these campaign managers, consultants, and otherwise, they will break that time down for you. They will break down when you are going to talk and have your early morning for the farmers and when you will have time when the students come back to the university campuses and most importantly when you will raise money. This is all sophisticated. It is all tried. It is understandable and it is part of the game. It is very, very, very expensive. To get around and really expose yourself, you do not have time to talk to people unless you are asking for their money and being nice and making the obligatory appearances at debates and certain programs and you try to generate free television. The distinguished Senator from New Jersey came forward with a nice idea, if it could work. I question it. The premise of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is that the people of New Jersey and the people of South Carolina are just as interested in the elections as the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from South Carolina. I doubt it. We just had an election in my State about 10 days ago, a special election. Out of some 180,000 voters, only 6,000 cast votes. It was on radio; it was on TV. Signs were plastered all over, and everything else like that. But we have less participation--and it is getting worse in this particular country--less than 50 percent. You get, in Australia and other countries, almost 100 percent voting. So the recommendation of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey to check-off for elections themselves to finance politics, I tell you now, that is a tough one, that is a very, very tough one. I can see that would have very limited chance to really be heard. Eighty percent of your money is expended on television. We have had different proposals of free TV. After all, the people of America own the airwaves. With the people of America owning these airwaves, it seems as if we can allocate some to public office and the attaining of public office. Each side would have so much free television. We have tried that approach. We have tried financing; we have tried voluntarily putting up so much money. We have tried any number of other solutions. They have all failed. Like I say, it has been a dog chasing its tail because we know that none of these particular bills will pass because every one of them runs into that unconstitutional decision, Buckley v. Valeo. There is not any question that that is a distortion. I ask unanimous consent to have a very good article by former Congressman Jonathan Bingham, of New York inserted into the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, because he has given a real life example of the frustration that we have. Let me yield so the other side can respond. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I yield whatever time necessary to my distinguished cosponsor, the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let us be done with the phony charge that spending limits are somehow an attack on freedom of speech. This is false. If anything the Courts decision is an attach on free speech. As Justice Marshall points out in his dissent the Court's decision actually limits the speech of those with less money. Justice Marshall states, and I quote: It would appear to follow that the candidate with the substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a significant head start. Indeed, Mr. President, Justice Marshall went further when he argued that by upholding the limits on contributions but striking down the limits on on a candidate's personal wealth. The effect of this decision was discussed before a hearing that we held in the Judiciary Committee. We have had several hearings. At one of those hearings, back in 1988, the Committee on the Constitutional System's Lloyd Cutler appeared, and he said and I quote: Along with Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas and Mr. Douglas Dillon, I am a co-chairman of the Committee on the Constitutional System, a group of 700 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. Quoting further: The courts approved the Presidential Campaign Financing Fund created by the '76 amendments, including the condition it imposed barring any Presidential nominee who accepted the public funds from spending more than a specified limit. However, it remains unconstitutional for Congress to place any limits on expenditures by independent committees or on behalf of a candidate. In recent Presidential elections, these independent expenditures on behalf of one candidate exceeds the amounts of Federal funding he accepted. Moreover, so long as Congress remains deadlocked on proposed legislation for the public financing of congressional campaigns, it is not possible to use the public financing device as a means of limiting congressional campaign expenditures. 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, In reality my amendment really restores the freedom of speech. If you have money, you have unlimited speech. If you do not have money, you have the freedom to shut up, say nothing. I can tell you, the last five amendments to the Constitution itself dealt with elections and all were ratified by three-fourths of the States in an average of 17 months. If we adopt this today the states can ratify it and we can enforce limits on campaign expenditures for the 1996 elections. My amendment, if effect, gets us back to an even playing field where everyone has the same freedom, rich or poor, Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal or otherwise. With respect to incumbency, I think we have learned from the last election that--at least we Democrats have learned--it does not pay to be an incumbent. I can tell you that right now. There were 10 Senators that were here last year that are not here today. Right to the point, Mr. President, for 20 years Congress has been like a dog chasing its tail. We have tried to correct Buckley versus Valeo. We have had, time and time again, debates on all forms of campaign reform. Again and again and again, it does not go anywhere. When it looks as if it is going somewhere, it is threatened with the veto. Here, with this particular approach, there is no veto. The amendment would go directly to the States. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. I yield.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, let me emphasize that this is not intended to delay the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. In fact, we have agreed to an hour and a half time limit. My amendment is drafted so that, if adopted, it will be engrossed separately by the States, and therefore voted on separately by the States, so it will not kill the balanced budget amendment. In other words we are not trying to delay or are confuse. Madam President, let me go to the history of this, because I was there. In the 1968 race for President, the distinguished former Secretary of Commerce, Maurice Stans, he came to my State and he said: Now, you textile leaders, you all have to contribute $35,000 apiece for the Presidential race. He raised $350,000. I had been in Government 20 years. I had been elected Lieutenant Governor, I had been elected Governor, and they were my friends, and they never got up $350,000 for this Senator. I remember this course of events well. In the Presidential campaign of 1968, the Nixon folks went all of the county to the rich and asked that they contribute to the campaign. One fellow from Chicago gave $2 million. There were several others who gave $400,000 and $500,000. Following the election, John Connally went to President Nixon and said, ``Mr. President, there have been some real valued contributors, substantial contributors, and they have not even met you or been thanked by you.'' They agreed that the President would come down the next week to the ranch in Texas for a barbecue. As that week arrived and they were turning into the barbecue at the Texas ranch, Dick Tuck, the prankster from the Kennedy days, put a Brink's truck by the gate. Then they got a picture of it. We were all embarrassed: The public thought the Government was up for sale. Madam President, it has gotten worse. Back in 1974, in a bipartisan fashion--I remember the debate well--we amended the Federal Election Campaign Practices Act. With these amendments we said the Government is not up for sale. You cannot receive cash. Every dollar must be on top of the table, accounted for here at the Secretary of the Senate and the Secretary of State back in your home State. You can only get $1,000 individually, $5,000 by way of a PAC and you will be limited to so much per voter. Most importantly, the total expenditures of the campaign would be limited. In the State of South Carolina it would be about $500,000, half a million dollars. But in the State of California or Texas it would be, of course, millions. I say it has gotten worse. But let me emphasize, we had a strong vote on the Federal Election Campaign Practices Act in 1974 and our good friend, the distinguished Senator from New York at that time, Senator Jim Buckley--and I speak affectionately because his father contributed to my races, William F. Buckley, Sr. --but Jim said: Oh, no, I am going to sue the Senate. You can't limit what I spend on my races. You have taken away my speech. And in a very distorted decision, a contorted decision, the Supreme Court agreed. By the Courts decision in Buckley versus Valeo, rather than freedom of speech under the first amendment, for individuals and people, the Supreme Court gave freedom of speech to the rich. Freedom to those with money, rather than to the people. The Court essentially took the speech away from the poor. For example, if I have $1 million and you have $50,000, I wait until the first week of October and then I just offload--spending all my money on television, signs, radio, farmer shows, talk shows and everything I can possibly think of. And whoever I am running against, their friends and family say, ``I wonder why he does not answer.'' You do not answer because you do not have the money. It takes literally millions of dollars now. It seems like somehow somewhere there would be some shame in this body. I have tried over the last 20 years. You can not offer a joint resolution as an amendment to a bill. It seems that in every Congress there were always campaign reform bills, but I could not offer my joint resolutions to them. Offering joint resolutions to bills is barred by the rules. These campaign reform bills usually included some form of public financing. That always lead to gridlock. It appears we are not going the way of public financing. I hope not, with a $4.85 trillion deficit. We are not going to find a new mission for the taxpayer--that of financing politicians. So we are not going to do that. We have to control campaign expenditures. We have to somehow control it. For heaven's sake, we have tried, and it has been bipartisan. I thank my distinguished colleague from the other side, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and the others who cosponsored and willingly voted to help in this particular cause. My amendment does not say what the limits would be. I would contemplate going back to what we intended, namely, limiting spending to so much per voter in each State; the small States the smaller amount of money and the large States the larger amount of money. But now today you have to raise $13,200 each and every week of a six year term for the average Senator to get reelected--$13,200 a week. He is in business, not to legislate, not to debate, not to listen, not to discuss, not to hear, but by gosh to track down everybody he can and pick their pockets--$13,200 a week. I heard the distinguished Senator from California, who was just reelected, say with her contributions and with the party contributions, it took her $19 million to run. Senator Feinstein would admit that. Her opponent, Mr. Huffington, spent almost $30 million. This is a disgrace. Do not come in here with this ``ying yow" about, yes, it is a good idea, but not on the balanced budget amendment. It is just our opportunity. We have had time and time again votes on my amendment. We had a vote on this particular matter back in 1988. We got 52 votes. We brought it up again later in that same year and we got a vote of 53 votes, and, on May 27 of 1993 we got 52 votes for a Sense- of-the-Senate resolution expressing that the Senate should adopt this amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chair. debate in this town. We suffer through tremendous frustrations in trying to balance the budget, trying to pay the bills, trying to put the Government on a pay-as-you-go basis. Every State has to do that. Every city has to do it. I, as a Senator, participated back in 1969 when the Congress voted and the President signed into law a balanced budget. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I participated in President Carter's efforts to cut government spending and leave his successor with a smaller deficit than he had inherited. We have seen the successes of President Clinton's $500 billion deficit reduction plan, and have known the tremendous struggle and frustration--the partisanship whereby there was not a single Republican vote in the House or in the Senate. Instead, Members predicted that the economy would stall, the deficit would rise, and everything was going to happen in the next hour. Now comes what the distinguished Senator from West Virginia calls a game. I call it outright fraud, because I know they know better. Here we are, trying to balance the budget without raiding Social Security, but all we are given is a constitutional amendment that uses these surpluses. This very minute, we have a statutory law on the books--section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990--signed into law on November 5 by President George Bush, which in effect says: ``Thou shalt not use Social Security funds.'' That is the formal statutory law; that is what we should be following today with or without the Dole amendment. If we are serious about trying to balance the budget, we should recognize that a constitutional amendment alone is not balancing the budget at all. It is a delay. It says you have to pass a joint resolution through both of these Houses, and then send it, and hopefully have 37 States ratify it in the next few years. So before we pat ourselves on the back for all our good work on balancing the budget, we should be mindful that a balanced budget amendment may not give discipline but rather may inspire creativity. We have seen that in circumvention of the Byrd amendment which statutorily required Congress to balance the budget, in talk about capital budgets and about off-budget exercises, and in eliminating the fixed deficit targets of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings as they did in the 1990 budget summit. Rather than recognize these shenanigans, the media in this town are smitten by the Contract With America and eagerly joins in this fraud. Taking our streets back is not going to balance the budget. The Personal Responsibility Act is not going to balance the budget. The Family Reinforcement Act is not going to balance the budget. The American Dream Restoration Act is not going to balance the budget. The National Security Restoration Act is not going to do it. The Senior Citizens Fairness Act is not going to balance the budget. The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act is not going to balance the budget. Common-sense legal reform is not going to balance the budget, and the Citizens Legislature Act and constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms will not balance the budget. So I come to this session of the Congress, having worked 28 years now in the vineyards trying to pay the bill and put the Government on a pay-as-you-go basis. Mr. President, we can put the Contract With America into law this afternoon. No budget is balanced, but that is exactly what we need in this land. On Friday, we got another creative maneuver. We voted on the Dole amendment which said: Strike the Dole amendment. Strike all after the first word and insert the following: ``For the purpose of any constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, the Budget Committee of the Senate shall report forthwith H.J. Res. 1 in status quo, and at the earliest date practicable after February 8, 1995, they shall report to the Senate how to achieve a balanced budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the disbursements and the Federal old age and survivors insurance trust funds and the Federal disability insurance trust fund to achieve that goal.'' But having the Budget Committee report how to balance the budget obscures what the law already says that the Congress must do. Instead, we have these creative put-offs that the media covers like they would an athletic contest. On Saturday morning, we see the headline ``Senate Resolution Bars Congress from Dipping into Social Security.'' Absolutely false. There is no bar to Congress dipping into Social Security. The folks that write these stories have been covering the Congress and they keep writing it the way the majority wants it written, not the way the facts are. They ought to expose this nonsense. They say it is called a fig leaf, but they do not say why. Why it is a fig leaf is absolutely important. The Dole amendment does not change the Constitution. But the constitutional provision that they want us to vote on after all of the amendments is ``total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing''. That constitutionally mandates the inclusion of Social Security funds. That is the whole point here. You cannot talk sense in this town; no wonder you can't get anything done. My good friend, the distinguished former Vice President, was on ``Meet the Press'' this past Sunday. He said, ``These are the types of things that we ought to look at, but when you have amendments in the Senate right now that we are going to put in the Constitution that you cannot touch Social Security, this is ridiculous.'' Those are the words of Vice President Quayle. But the Reid amendment does not say that at all. You can touch Social Security. We touched it the year before last in the budget. This particular Reid amendment does not say do not touch it; it says do not include it in your receipts and your outlays and disbursements. That is all it says. The Republicans want to use the $636 billion in Social Security surpluses--that is the whole point here. If they kill that Reid amendment, then they have $636 billion in their pocket that they do not have to cut in order to put us on a pay-as-you-go basis. That is the intent of the Concord Coalition which has done some good work. I wish they would get that digital clock that has the running tally of the national debt and put it into the parking lot in front of the Capitol so we could see it every morning when we come to work. But I wish they would not put forth this subterfuge about entitlements, entitlements, entitlements. Social Security is a trust fund; it is paid for. Do not give me 2029. Let us worry about today. I have said time and again that it is like the 49ers, going down to Miami and running into the stands hollering ``We want a touchdown.'' Get down on the field and score the touchdown. That is what the 49ers did. We are the Government. The Republicans on the other side of the aisle are in the majority. They have control. They have the Supreme Court, they have the House of Representatives, and they have the U.S. Senate. Let them act like they have some responsibility. But do not give me this hit and run driving. All of this is process, process, process. Nothing is real. Nothing gets done. No budget is balanced. They want to use these Social Security funds. Mr. President, a few years ago I had a conference with the former OMB Director, Dick Darman at the insistence of President Bush. Later he enumerated in public exactly what he told me in the office. They want to get entitlements. They will not say the word ``tax'' even though they know that you have to have tax increases as well as spending cuts to balance the budget. Yes, you have to do something about Government spending on entitlements, but Social Security is paid for, so why break the trust? You are going to try your best with welfare, you are going to try your best with health. If you cut health back from a 10-percent growth rate to 5 percent, you will be a magician. You will get the good government award. President Clinton has already gone a long way in this regard. They say he did not have the courage, but I get letters of thanks for his bringing up health reform last year. The chairman of the board of one of the largest employers in the State of South Carolina recently told me ``Keep on pouring on the coals. For the first time, I got my insurance coverage for the employees instead of going up, it went down 10 percent.'' bring up health reform. And for that, they ridicule him and the First Lady. They criticized him last year for his proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Now they are running around here, bumping over desks and talking about no courage, taking a walk, putting up the white flag, and all that. Where has any Republican put up their budget? They will not do it because they do not want to show senior citizens that they want to use the moneys in the Social Security trust fund. At least the Concord Coalition has the decency to say so. This crowd goes around, like the distinguished majority whip, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, who says, ``No one--no Republican, no Democrat, no conservative, no liberal, no moderate--is even thinking,'' he says, ``about using Social Security.'' That is all they are thinking about. Why the big debate? There is already one exception in the language of the constitutional amendment. Their amendment says, ``Total receipts shall include all receipts of the U.S. Government except those derived from borrowing.'' And the Reid amendment says, ``except Social Security trust funds.'' Now what is the matter with that? Don't give me all this gobbledygook about legislating in a constitutional amendment. They got an exception in here. You cannot hide from this. What did old Joe Louis tell Billy Conn? ``You can run, but you cannot hide.'' They cannot hide on this one. It is crystal clear and we tried to show that in the Record. Some say we are trying to defeat the balanced budget amendment. I voted three times for it; I will vote for it again if you get the Reid amendment in there. But I am not going to breach the trust. I am not going to violate the contract that we made with America in 1935. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.