Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator will yield, I am trying to retain some time for my cosponsor, Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. I heard 10 minutes ago he was on his way to the floor. I would be glad for the Senator to proceed if we could reserve 10 minutes of time when Senator Specter gets here at 11:45.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I'm addressing the so-called freedom of speech with respect to campaign financing. I explained yesterday afternoon how we, in the 1974 act, tried to clean up the corruption. Cash was being given, all kinds of favors and demands were being made on members of the Government, as well as in the private sector. Numerous people were convicted. We enacted the 1974 act after the Maurice Stans matter in the Nixon campaign. We debated one particular point--that you could not buy the office. Now the contention is that you can buy the office because under the first amendment protecting freedom of speech, and money being speech, there is no way under the Constitution that it can be controlled. Of course, that is a distortion by the Buckley v. Valeo decision for the simple reason that we finally have Justice Stevens saying that ``money is property.'' Justice Kennedy goes right into the distortion. I quote from the case of Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC: The plain fact is that the compromise the Court invented-- -- I emphasize the word ``invented''---- in Buckley set the stage for a new kind of speech to enter the political system. It is covert speech. The Court has forced a substantial amount of political speech underground, as contributors and candidates devise ever more elaborate methods of avoiding contribution limits, limits which take no account of rising campaign costs. The preferred method has been to conceal the real purpose of the speech. Then further: Issue advocacy, like soft money, is unrestricted . . . while straightforward speech in the form of financial contributions paid to a candidate . . . is not. Thus has the Court's decision given us covert speech. This mocks the First Amendment. I hope everybody, particularly the other side of the aisle, understands that I am reading from Justice Kennedy: This mocks the First Amendment. He goes on to say: Soft money must be raised to attack the problem of soft money. In effect, the Court immunizes its own erroneous ruling from change. We have it foursquare. There is no question that the majority in Buckley has mocked the first amendment. Four Justices in Buckley v. Valeo found that you could control spending. They treated money as it has been treated in the Congress--as property and not speech. Let's look, for example, at the hearing we had. When the Senate is asked to consider contributions, they consider them property. So we had the Thompson investigation. Seventy witnesses testified in public over a total of 33 days; 200 witness interviews were conducted; 196 depositions were conducted under oath; 418 subpoenas were issued for hearings, depositions, and documents; and more than 1.5 million pages of documents were received. They did not say that Charlie Trie, Johnny Huang and others had free speech. The lawyers in those particular cases would be delighted to hear a Congressman who now takes the position that: Oh, it is all free speech. Don't worry about any violations because the first amendment protects this money. The first amendment protects it as free speech. That is out of the whole cloth. They have been singsonging because they enjoy this particular corruption. What corruption? As I pointed out yesterday, we used to come in here and work. Thirty years ago, under Senator Mansfield, we would come in at 9 o'clock Monday morning and we would have a vote. The distinguished leader at that time usually had a vote to make sure we got here and started our week's work--and I emphasize ``week's work.'' We worked throughout Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and we were lucky to complete our work by Friday evening at 5 o'clock. Now: Monday is gone. Tuesday morning is gone. We don't really work here. We are waiting and not having any votes. People are coming back into town. Nobody is here to listen. On Wednesday and Thursday we have to have windows so we can go fundraise. Can you imagine that? That ought to embarrass somebody. But I have asked for windows, too, because that is the way it is. The money chase--the amount of money that must be chased--has corrupted this Congress. Everybody knows it. The people's business is set aside. On Friday, we go back home. What do we do? We have fund- raisers. We don't have free-speech raisers, like they are talking about on the floor of the Senate now. They get all pontifical and stand up and talk oh so eruditely about the Constitution and the first amendment. They know better than anyone that this is property. But as long as they can sell everybody that there are no limits, there are no restrictions on money because it is free speech, then it is ``Katie bar the door'' and we have really gone down the tube. It is not that bad; it is worse. We used to have a break, I think it was on February 12, for Lincoln's birthday. It might have been a long weekend, but it was not a 10-day break. Now, January is gone. Then we had a 10-day break in February. We had a 10-day break again in March. We will have another 10-day break in April. We will have another 10-day break in May and at the beginning of June. Then we will have the Fourth of July break. Then we will have the month of August off--all of this keeping us from doing the people's business. I thought once our campaigns were over we would come up here and go to work on behalf of the people's business. Instead, we work on behalf of our own business: reelection. All in the name of this tremendous volume of money, money, money everywhere. They are trying to defend it on the premise of: Give me the ACLU and the Washington Post. Then they put up a sandwich board about newspapers: If the Hollings amendment is passed, the newspapers can't write editorials. I never heard of such nonsense. This does not have to do with anybody's freedom of speech. We cannot, should not and would not ever take away anybody's speech. But we can take away the money used in campaigns and limit it just like every other country does. In England, they limit the amount of time in which you can actually conduct the campaign. They do not talk about campaigns in reference to the Magna Carta: Wait a minute, you have taken away my speech here in the Parliament. There is none of that kind of nonsense. But here, it is the kind of thing we are having to put up with. The question is, Can this problem be solved another way? That is exactly what the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, says: We have a problem. Let's solve it in another way. He puts in a statutory amendment with respect to the flag. With respect to campaign financing, give me a break. We have tried for 25 years--everything from public finance to free TV time, to soft money, to hard money limitations, to any and every idea. Now we have the Vice President proposing an endowment to finance federal campaigns. They think all you have to do is come up with a new idea and then you are really serious about this. If you are going to get serious, vote for this amendment. Then, by gosh, we are playing for keeps. There are a lot of people on McCain-Feingold getting a free ride voting for it, knowing it is never going anywhere because the Senator from Kentucky is manifestly correct, it is patently unconstitutional. There is no question that this Court would find McCain-Feingold unconstitutional. Everybody knows that. This is one grand charade, as the corruption continues. I emphasize that this amendment does not take a side with McCain- Feingold, with hard money, with soft money, with the Vice President's endowment, with anything else or any idea one may have about controlling spending in Federal elections. It is not pro, it is not con, it is not for, it is not against. It merely gives authority to the Congress to do what we intended back in 1974 with the amended version of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971; and that is, to stop people from buying the office. The corruption is such that you have to buy the office. We are required to buy it. I can tell you, because two years ago I spent more of my time raising $5.5 million for my seventh reelection to the Senate than I did campaigning. So I speak advisedly. I have asked for windows. I have asked for parts of this corruption that we are all involved in. The only way it is going to be cleaned up is a constitutional amendment. What does Justice Kennedy say? He says: Buckley mocks the first amendment. Mind you, there was only one Justice who called money property, but another said it mocked the first amendment. Then I read from the decision: Soft money must be raised to attack the problem of soft money. In effect, the Court immunizes its own erroneous ruling from change. Imagine that. The Court has immunized the ruling from change; namely, you cannot change it by statute. Listen Senator Conrad, and any other Senator interested in playing games with this corruption, saying we will put in a little statute. There have been 2,000 or 20,000 amendments to the Constitution. Give me a break. The last five or seven amendments had to do with elections. None of them is as important as this particular national corruption of Congress. We all know about it. We all participate in it. We have no time to be a Congress. We are just a dignified bunch of money raisers for each other and for ourselves. It is sad to have to say that on the floor of the Senate, but it is time we give the people a chance. This does not legislate or provide anything. It just says, come November, as a joint resolution, let the people decide. I think the people have decided. That is why my amendment is timely. During this year's presidential primaries everyone was talking about campaign finance reform--reform, reform, reform. Candidates were saying, I am the reform candidate. The one thing they are trying to reform is campaign financing, this corruption. Now even the Vice President has come out and said: The first day I am your President, I will submit McCain-Feingold--knowing it is an act in futility. Let's pass McCain-Feingold unanimously. The Court throws it out later this year. It is not going anywhere. The Court has time and again said soft money is speech. That is the majority of this crowd. But I admonish the four Justices in Buckley v. Valeo who said they could do it. Now we have two other Justices talking sense. We know good and well that the people want a chance to talk on this, to vote on this. I had no sooner put this up years ago, back in the 1980s, and the States' Governors came and, by resolution, asked that we amend the Hollings amendment so as to include the States. So that now the Hollings amendment reads that Congress is hereby empowered to regulate or control spending in Federal elections, and the States are hereby allowed to regulate or control spending in State elections. It should be remembered that the last, I think, six out of seven amendments, took an average of 17 or 18 months. This is very timely for the people to vote on in November, when the issue has already been discussed and debated throughout the primaries. The people are ready to vote on campaign finance reform. And both presidential candidates, Bush and Gore, are now trying to position themselves as reformers on campaign finance. We can solve that by having the people vote on the issue in and of itself. Within 17 months, on average, we can have the people vote and by this time next year have it confirmed by the Congress and this mess will cleaned up. Then we can go back to work for the people of America and cut out this money machine operation that we call a Congress. We not only have to go out during breaks and raise money, we now have ``power hours.'' We have the ``united fund,'' your fair share allocation that you are supposed to raise and contribute to the committee. It becomes more and more and more. Every time I turn around, instead of trying to get some work done, we have more money demands. So if you want to stop the corruption and stop the charade of calling campaign contributions free speech, this amendment is the solution. We are not taking away anybody's speech. We in Congress don't call it speech when we conduct these hearings, year-long hearings with hundreds of witnesses and millions of pages of testimony to get the scoundrels. For what? Not for exercising their free speech but for violating limitations on money contributions. We treat money as property when we have these fund raisers. We don't call them free-speech raisers. We treat it as property, except when we try to really stop the corruption. I hope we will stop it today and vote affirmatively on the Hollings- Specter amendment so that we can move on and get back to our work. Go up to the majority leader and ask him: Mr. Leader, I would like you to bring up TV violence. He will say: Well, that will take 3 or 4 days. We don't have time. Why don't we have time? We don't work on Monday. We don't work on Friday, just the afternoons on Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday. We can't even allow amendments. We are going in this afternoon at 3:30 to the Budget Committee, but we have been putting that off again and again. I just checked an hour ago and it was said: We really don't know whether the vote is fixed. They try to fix the jury, fix the vote so there are no amendments to be accepted. The vote is fixed. It is an exercise--if you don't go along with their fix--in futility. Yet Members go around and say: I am a Member of the most deliberative body in the United States, most deliberative body in the world. The money chase has corrupted us so that we are fixed in a position where we can't deliberate. We don't deliberate. We have forgotten about that entirely and, in fact, rather enjoy it. So long as nobody raises any questions and we all can go back home and continue to raise money, we think we are doing a good job. It is a sad situation. I hope we can address it in an up-front manner and support the amendment. I retain the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand we are on the flag amendment. That is why I waited for them to complete their hour and I begin mine.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have time left. I would be glad to yield it to the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I have no objection to the 10-minute request.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I think we have 5 more minutes. I yield the time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. This is entitled ``Pander Gap.'' We are not pandering to the people. We have taken away the votes of all the people, not just the 18-year-olds. The survey is used to figure out this so-called polling. They say we followed the polls. I am quoting this part of it: . . . the surveys are used to figure out how to sell policies that have already been constructed (much as market researchers convene focus groups and sponsor surveys to find new ways to get you to buy soap). Rather than hewing to the demands of voters . . . today's lawmakers answer to ``the extreme ideological elements of their parties, to their contributors, and to special interests.'' In short, to money, money, money, millions and millions. The year before last I was supposed to run a race in South Carolina on about $3 million at the most. I had to spend $5.5 million. Since the South has gone Republican, it made it more difficult. With two Republican Senators from Alabama, two from Mississippi, two from Texas, two from Tennessee, it seems everywhere I look, I've got Republicans buzzing around me. I am not critical because I got a lot of good Republican votes. I am grateful for the Republicans who did vote for me. But, in essence, it was tough to get those contributions because they didn't want their names to appear, and then go to the club and have to explain why in the world they contributed to that scoundrel Hollings? They were ready to give me the money, but they could not. So I had to travel the land and tell my story. I was lucky. They gave me a rather hard-working fellow as an opponent who was all over the place. Didn't know what he was talking about, about the polls and everything, and trying to take a fellow who had been in office almost 50 years, and being arrogant about it. You can't be arrogant and get elected seven times to the Senate. I can tell you that. You respond to the people, and I happily do so. I am responding to the people of this country. I am not amending the Constitution lightly. I will yield in a moment to give my colleague from Alabama time. Let's hearken back to 1971 and 1974, the Federal Election Campaign Practices Act. I will never forget in the 1968 race, Maurice Stans was running around almost like the Chamber of Commerce. He told various businesses: Your fair share is this. He came to the textile industry in South Carolina and said it is $350,000. This was 30-some years ago. They had never raised $350,000 for this fellow, and I had done everything in the world for the textile industry. They got together 10 of them with $35,000 apiece. What happened was individuals gave a million, or $500,000, $2 million, different amounts in cash. And it so happened that after President Nixon had taken office, the Secretary of Treasury, John Connolly came to the President and said: Mr. President, a lot of people have given you a lot of money. You haven't met them, you haven't shaken their hands, you haven't been able to thank them. I think it would be in order for you to come down to the ranch. I will put it on at the ranch. Nixon said: Fine business, that's what we will do. A few weeks later, they turned into the ranch. But as they turned into the ranch in Texas, there was old Dick Tuck with the Brinks truck--you know the prankster from the Kennedy years. My heavens, the Government was up for sale. We were all embarrassed, Republican and Democrat. We got to the floor and presented the 1974 Campaign Practices Act--we said to our friend, the Senator from Massachusetts: You can't buy it. We looked over there to the Senator from New York, Mr. Buckley and he said: You can't tell me. I am going to buy it. We passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. But Senator Buckley then sued the Secretary of the Senate and took it all the way to the Supreme Court. That is where we got this distortion which causes the corruption. It was by one vote, 5-4. If you want to raid the erudite decisions on this particular matter, read Justice White and Justice Marshall in the dissenting opinion. They foresaw this corruption in the process, where we can't get anything done, where we have the unmitigated gall to stand up and say: I am going to buy this office. Of course, they say: Freedom of speech; freedom of speech. Nobody is listening to that. I never thought the day would come when they would stand on the floor and proudly say, ``I am going to buy the office,'' or a particular party would come and say, ``We are going to buy the Presidency.'' That is exactly what they have done. The Republican Party said: Get out of the way, Steve Forbes, and all the rest of you; we are going to get our candidate, Governor Bush down in Texas, and we are going to raise him $70 million. He has already spent $63 million, and it is only March. We have almost 7 or 8 months to go before the election. They are not worried about that. We just never did think. I can see Senator Long of Louisiana. Every mother's son ought to be able to run for the Presidency. That is why we have the checkoff on the income tax return and the matching funds for those who qualify. We thought that was good and plenty. But they spent, by the first of March, $63 million, and they will spend another $63 million very easily. That crowd has an investment. If I were going to run for the Presidency, I would run on one particular message: Let the people of America know here and now this office is not for sale. That ought to be a fundamental Americanism-- that you can't buy the office. Now, we have several in the body who had millions in their campaigns and have gotten to the Senate. I will say in the same breath, I look at them and their service, and they would have done the same without the millions, but they did spend millions to get here. That is the kind of body we are turning it into more and more each year. You can't consider anything. You can't debate anything. You can't take time to speak to your colleagues. It is a veritable money chase. That is exactly why we are not doing anything this year. It is the year 2000, the year that the U.S. Congress squats and does nothing. There is an old political axiom: When in doubt, do nothing, and stay in doubt all the time. That reelects a lot of people. That is what we are motivated by on this particular afternoon. I am going into the details of the amendment again out of necessity and will emphasize why we need a constitutional amendment, because we have tried it every other way. The Court has found, more and more, free speech implications in any and all legislation. Unless we can amend the Constitution to extract this cancer and this corruption from the body politic, we are goners. I can tell you that democracy is gone. I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield such time as is necessary.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania. He is so learned in the law and so long on common sense. He just laid out what the situation is and how we are going about, in a very deliberate, constitutional way, repairing the tremendous damage done by Buckley v. Valeo. There is no question about the process being corrupted. He mentioned a minute ago that I have been here since 1966. I have been here when we have had everybody here at 5:30 and we would debate these things and, yes, on a Monday. But we do not meet on Mondays. Why? Because we have been corrupted by the money chase. I have gone to the leaders on both sides: Give me a window; how about seeing if we do not go late on Thursday night because I have to get back to South Carolina for a fundraiser. Every Senator has done it. We are not here on Monday. We are not here on Friday. In 1966 and 1967, under Senator Mansfield, I can tell you right now, we worked until late Friday afternoon and we reported back for rollcalls at 9 o'clock on Monday morning. We worked the full time. We worked the full months. We did not have January off and then another big break in February and another break in March and another break in April and another break in May-June and another break of a month in August. Why the breaks? To raise the money. If you are not raising it for yourself, you are supposed to go out and raise it for your colleagues. The whole process has been corrupted. Recognize it. We cannot get a bill. We cannot get debate. We cannot talk to each other. Nobody is here. They are not expected to be here. TV has corrupted that. If one wanted to know what was going on in the Chamber, they had to get out of their office and come to the floor. We always had 15 or 20 Members on one side and 20 or 30 Members on the other side listening and joining in, and we had debates on serious matters. We debated. The most deliberative body in the world was our reputation. Now we do not bring up a serious matter unless it is fixed. We cannot produce a budget unless the vote is fixed in the Budget Committee, and when they can get it through it is late Thursday evening, when it is quite obvious none of the amendments are going to be adopted. The vote is fixed. The jury is fixed. There is no deliberation. They will bring that up, and then they have fixed time on it. Go to the leader and say: We want to take up this measure, and it takes 3 or 4 days; and he will look at you as if you are stupid: Don't you know better, we don't have time to deliberate, we don't have time to debate. The system is corrupted. Get a life. Get along. Go out. Collect some money. After all, it is the money chase. We have to work for ourselves to stay in office or to keep our colleagues in office. That is the name of the game. Important issues, I can go down the list--but when they want money, oh, wait a minute, there is an exception. That sham, that fraud, that charade of Y2K. For 30 years, the computer industry had notice of the year 2000. For 30 years, they all could have changed. They still have 7 months or so to change. There was a big debate. Why? Because the lawyers got the Chamber of Commerce to gin up Silicon Valley. The gentleman from Intel told me there was not a real problem, and everybody else said there was not a real problem. But we had a problem. It was a money chase for getting Silicon Valley's money in Y2K, and the media covered it: How much Bush had received, how much Gore had received, how much this group had received, and we continue to invite Silicon Valley here for special sessions. We are really interested. That is not middle America, and they are not going to create our industrial backbone. We admire their ingenuity and their talent. We are not jealous of the money. Let them all make millions. We just want our share. Y2K came, and we passed it. Nothing happened. In opposition to the States, in opposition to the States' supreme court justices, in opposition to the American Bar Association, we repealed 200 years of State tort law. Why? Because of the money. Why, we spent 4 days on that one. That was highly important. Just put up a straw man, knock it down, and then go home, boldly and proudly saying: Look what we have done; we took care of Y2K. Yet, on the other hand, if we have a real problem, they will not call it up. Why? On account of the money. I have a TV violence bill. There is no mystery to this. Europe, Australia, and New Zealand do not have children shooting each other in schools. They have a safe harbor practice so that violence appears on television after hours. I introduced the same thing, and it was in the Commerce Committee in the last two Congresses. Senator Dole was there. When he went out to the west coast, he came back and said: Oh, this is terrible. I said: Senator Dole, why don't you be the chief sponsor, you run it, you take credit for it. It has already been debated and we have had testimony on it, and it was reported out by a vote of 19-1 from the Commerce Committee. It is on the calendar. Call it. Oh, no, it wasn't called. We needed the Hollywood money. I have it on the calendar now. Again, we debated it. We brought out the study the industry conducted, and the motion picture industry itself found that violence was on the rise. It is a real problem in this country, but we talk a little bit here and there. When we want to get a tried and true approach and it is on the calendar, they say: Wait a minute, don't call that, let's not debate it. It is not called up because of the money. This attitude has corrupted the process, and we have a gang over there that loves the corruption. They come here with their octopus defense. I have seen it before. We used to try cases, and if you do not have the facts and you do not have the lawyer beaten on the desk, you squirt out that dark ink of freedom of speech, first amendment, 2,000 years, 20,000 amendments. This is a shocking thing. They were not shocked when the 1976 decision of Buckley v. Valeo came down because that decision is what amended the freedom of speech. It said: If you have the money, you have all the speech you want. If you don't have the money, you get lockjaw. Shut up. You don't have speech. In that Buckley v. Valeo decision, read what they said in this distortion: ``Money is property; it is not speech,'' said Justice Stevens. Then Justice Kennedy: The plain fact is that the compromise the Court invented in Buckley set the stage for a new kind of speech to enter the political system. It is covert speech. This is, of course, the famous case of Nixon v. Shrink, the most recent decision of this Court: The Court has forced a substantial amount of political speech underground, as contributors and candidates devise ever more elaborate methods of avoiding contribution limits, limits which take no account of rising campaign costs. The preferred method has been to conceal the real purpose of the speech. . .. Issue advocacy, like soft money, is unrestricted, see Buckley, supra, at 42-44, while straightforward speech in the form of financial contributions paid to a candidate, speech subject to full disclosure and prompt evaluation by the public, is not. Thus has the Court's decision given us covert speech. This mocks the First Amendment. That is what Justice Kennedy talks about. That is what I am talking about. Don't give me this: Freedom of speech and first amendment. What a shocking thing it is with that black ink like the octopus, putting up all the billboards about the freedom of the press and how people want editorial writers to be equally Democratic and Republican--what kind of nonsense is all of that? And what about getting up and saying: All I want is for you to register and vote. Quoting further: The current system would be unfortunate, and suspect under the First Amendment, had it evolved from a deliberate legislative choice; but its unhappy origins are in our earlier decree in Buckley, which by accepting half of what Congress did (limiting contributions) but rejecting the other (limiting expenditures) created a misshapen system, one which distorts the meaning of speech. The Senator from North Dakota said: Let's don't do it lightly. Let's don't amend the Constitution willy-nilly. I agree. But what about when you have a threat to the democracy, to the Republic itself, this corruption of the process here, where the Congress does nothing because of the money chase that we are in. Quoting further: The irony that we would impose this regime in the name of free speech ought to be sufficient ground to reject Buckley's wooden formula in the present case. The wrong goes deeper, however. By operation of the Buckley rule, a candidate cannot oppose this system in an effective way without selling out to it first. We all have to sell out. I am running around trying to get money to help my colleagues right this minute. Soft money must be raised to attack the problem of soft money. Listen to this sentence: In effect, the Court immunizes its own erroneous ruling from change. Let me quote that one more time: In effect, the Court immunizes its own erroneous ruling from change. That is why you need a constitutional amendment. That is why we are here. If you enjoy the corruption, if you want to continue on, not being able to debate anything around here, not having to amend, just going through the motions of arriving and going home, and getting another break and going home to collect some more money, and coming back and going back to collect more money, and acting as if you are doing the people's business--it is an embarrassment. They sure know embarrassment when they try to equate it with free speech, when they can jump on Vice President Gore and the Buddhist temple. The Christian right, that fellow Pat Robertson with the Christian right, I have had to face that insidious trickery in all of my campaigns--that Bob Jones crowd. I am glad it is out from under the radar. Let me tell you, it has been going on. I wish Senator McCain had had a chance to get organized in the State because that is the only way I survived. You have to sort of out-organize it. But they had Ralph Reed in there, and he had been working in there since last June. He had it all greased. They had the poor Senator from Arizona's family in the Mafia. They had him fathering illegitimate children. And he was in prison. They had him getting along with the North Vietnamese and going against the veterans. They had more dirty rumors--totally false--of anything you can think of. I mean, you never heard such things. He had no chance. The Christian right and Pat Robertson: They come on Sunday. They brag. I can show you the statement, 75 million leaflets. They come out and give them out to the church on Sunday morning. They distort your record, and everything else of that kind. You cannot answer because the vote is on Tuesday. He said he spent $500,000 carrying Virginia for George W. Bush. Pat Robertson, he gets respect. He's on TV. We think that is great. He is a bum, I can tell you. I know him. I knew his father Willis. He was a real gentleman. Willis Robertson was one of the finest gentlemen you would ever meet. That fellow is a scoundrel, whining and weaseling and dealing around. But then, of course, the poor Buddhists, they want to get in the act. There is nothing wrong with the Buddhists getting in the act. They tell me now what had happened is that this young lady, she had gotten contributions from everybody and then reimbursed them. They found her guilty of the--what?--contributions, not of free speech. See, when we find Johnny Huang guilty, that is in violation of the contribution laws. That is not free speech. That is money. Oh, boy, I wish I was a lawyer before the jury with that crowd. When they held the committee here with Charlie Trie, we had the Governmental Affairs Committee conduct the activities. I do not know how many months, but 70 witnesses, 200 witness interviews, 196 depositions under oath, 418 subpoenas, with a final report published in 1998 with six volumes, 9,575 pages--about contributions, not free speech. But now this afternoon, we pushed that aside. The Senator from Texas says, You Democrats have all the labor unions and we have the corporate money. However, in South Carolina, I don't have either one. So let me give you George W. Bush's statement on soft money, because he's an authority on the subject. This is on January 23. George Will, questioning Governor Bush: In which case would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill or the Shays-Meehan bill? Governor Bush: That is an interesting question. Yes, I would. And the reason why is two for one. And I think it does restrict-- I am quoting it verbatim here as written. --free speech for individuals. As I understand how the bill was written, I think there has been two versions of it. But as I understand, the first version restricted individuals and/or groups from being able to express their opinion. I've always said that I think corporate soft money and labor union soft money--which I do not believe is individual free speech, this is collected free speech--ought to be banned. We have Vice President Gore. He got the message about the corruption. He said: The first thing I will do when I am your President is submit to Congress the McCain-Feingold bill. The people are tired of this political mess up here. I am tired of being a part of it. They will hear from me again and again. The reason you hadn't heard about it is that they forbid a joint resolution from coming up. I studied the calendar and waited for a joint resolution so that my joint resolution won't be objected to on a point of order. It is finally in order and so we can hear it. But then I had to go along or else I wouldn't have had a chance to introduce it at all because then they would have brought the flag amendment up and the cloture vote. So you bag around here, this most deliberative body, for an hour or 2 hours to get some work done and nobody is here. Nobody wants to be here because they are supposed to be out raising money and having fundraisers and breakfasts in the morning and windows at lunchtime and in the evening. It's taking a few hours on Wednesday afternoon to call on behalf of your campaign committee and come up with thousands of dollars, your fair share. It is money, money, money, money. It is corruption. You tell me about the Washington Post; that crowd still calls the deficit a surplus. You tell me about the ACLU and all these other authorities running around and the scare tactics, that octopus defense, and the dark ink and all of those other irrelevant matters. We are talking sense. We are talking law. We are talking about what the Justices have just stated. There is no question why Justice Stevens said money is property and not speech. He was only one of the nine. The others could have gone along and reversed Buckley, and we would be out of this dilemma. We would go back to the original intent, which was to control spending. Now we are proudly hollering about this and that and freedoms, and now we are going to take the newspapers and do away with the editorialists and control the press. This amendment doesn't use the word ``speech.'' It says ``contributions.'' It is money. That is exactly what we have controlled throughout and that is what is intended. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, stood up there and started reading this. He said that is limiting speech. It is not limiting speech. You can't limit speech. But you can limit the freedom of the contributions. You and I know that. That is what we are trying to do. Under the 1974 act that computed spending limits by the number of registered voters, Senator Thurmond and I would have had $670,000. Double that to a million or a half or give us 2.5 million. That is a gracious plenty. When I first ran for office I ran against a millionaire--a most respected gentleman, but he had the money. But we outworked him, just like we out-organized my opponent the year before last in South Carolina. That is why I am still here and able to talk. I don't buy cars in campaigns, but it was suggested that a lot of other candidates do. When they rent, lease, and then later buy a piece of property, all of that is not freedom of speech. That is money. It is contributions. It is where you ought to try to control the spending limits so we don't become a bunch of millionaires and instead go back to what Russell Long said: Every mother's son would be able to run for the highest office in the land. I could go on and on. The afternoon is late. To repeal the first amendment, the Senator from Washington turned to the Senator from Kentucky and said, read that word, that is to ``repeal'' the first amendment. Now, if you believe that, you go ahead and vote against this. But you know and I know, it is to repeal the corruption. That is what I am about; I am trying to repeal the corruption. I am trying to get back to the original intent. Yes, you might say we had 38 votes. I remember when we had 52 votes, a majority, for this. I remember when I had a dozen Republican cosponsors. I admire my colleague from Pennsylvania for sticking with me on this, making it bipartisan. But I don't know of another one over there, because they have been disciplined and put right into the trough and told: You stick with us. This is a party vote, and this is it. It is freedom of speech and don't you forget it. It is not freedom of speech. It is money. We are trying to control the purchase of the office. We are trying to correct the corruption. We are trying to get back to our work on behalf of the people, which is very difficult to do with the pressures now on Senators up here. It is disgraceful. It is absolutely disgraceful. Everybody knows it. I want somebody to contest it. They are not around. They are not going to contest it. They are going to make these comments about so many years and so many amendments and the freedom of speech and the hallowed document and everything else. I have gone down five of the last six amendments; all had to do with elections, less important than this corruption to be corrected, far less a threat. I admit, recognize, agree with the Senator from North Dakota that we shouldn't do it lightly, and we are not doing it lightly. If it was only a minor problem, whereby we could merely pass a statute, I would do it. But all of these statutes, McCain-Feingold, as the Senator from Kentucky has contended each time, is patently unconstitutional. You can tell from reading this most recent decision on soft money how they are equating everything with speech. You can see how they have immunized their mistake from change. Those are not my words. Those are Justice Kennedy's words. They have ``immunized'' their mistake from change. So we have to have a constitutional amendment. This is written very carefully, very deliberately, and very reasonably, where we don't take sides one way or the other, whether you are for or against McCain- Feingold, whether you are for or against free TV time, whether you are for or against public financing, whether you are for or against your idea you have on campaign finance. This will constitutionalize it so we can quit this sham of beating around the bush. It is hit and run driving with a, yes, I am for reform, knowing good and well that the Court is going to throw it out when it gets there. So we can find out who is who and what is what. I understand that this corruption should cease. I want to complete the thought I was making with respect to various comments of the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, who said they are being denied under the Hollings amendment the right to speak at all. Not so. The person being denied the right to speak at all in political campaigns is the individual without the money. Take a campaign against a very affluent or wealthy person, and they buy up all the time. At the end, you do not have the money to match it. The TV station calls you and says: Here are all of these time slots gotten by your opponent, and you have the right to equal it. I don't have the money. Before long, with all of the friends, the family says: Well, I don't understand why John doesn't answer him. He is not interested in this race. He is not working. He looks slovenly. Why? Because he doesn't have the money. That is the point. Right now, I am trying to prepare, along with the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for being denied the right to speak at all. That is under the Buckley v. Valeo decision. If you have money, you can speak until the sky is the limit and for how long your money will take you. If you do not have the money, you have the right to get lockjaw, shut up, and sit down, that ends it, because 85 percent of your money goes to television and you are not there. The people do not know you are in the race. They keep talking about repealing the first amendment. The distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, said that limiting candidates would give special interests more power. It would create a vacuum, and the special interest would fill the vacuum. There isn't any vacuum, except for the poor. The special interests are in there to the tune of millions and millions. That is what we all know. We are trying to limit the special interests. We are not trying to create a vacuum they can fill. That is exactly the point of this particular amendment. You go over again and again. They raise these straw men of exactly the opposite of what is intended and what is provided for in the Hollings-Specter amendment; namely, to limit spending in Federal elections, and limit spending, of course, in State elections. With respect to the cases, I cited the case where the individual got caught trying to go around. I refer now to James W. Brosnan's article in The Commercial Appeal dated November 8, 1998. The indictment of Chattanooga developer Franklin Haney highlights what some campaign reformers believe could be a frequent, but hard to prove, crime--companies reimbursing their employees for contributions. The indictment charges that Haney and his administrative assistant, who was not named in the indictment, instructed company employees to make contributions of $1,000 apiece, filled out the donor cards themselves and then wrote Haney Company checks to reimburse the employees. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Thirty minutes when?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is the pertinent part. Simon Fireman, a national vice chairman of Dole's campaign, funneled $100,000 into Dole's campaign using employees of his company, Aqua Leisure Industries of Avon, MA. He paid a $6 million fine. Empire Sanitary Landfill of Scranton, PA, pleaded guilty to contributing $110,000 to Dole and other Republican campaigns through employees and paid an $8 million fine. Independent counsel Donald Smaltz was appointed to investigate Mike Espy, which we all know about. I don't know what happened to Haney, or whether or not he was found innocent. But let's assume so. I am not trying to disparage. I am just trying to say here is the corruption that actually goes on. In one case, lobbyist Jim Lake arranged for a $5,000 contribution to the 1994 Mississippi congressional campaign of Espy's brother and then padded his expense account to get the money back. He was fined $150,000 and ordered to write and send descriptions of the campaign finance law to 2,000 lobbyists. Another New Orleans attorney, Alvarez Ferrouilet, was sentenced to 1 year in prison for disguising $20,000 in illegal contributions to Espy. The other cases have resulted in fines of $1.5 million against Sun- Diamond Growers, $480,000 against Sun-Land Products, $80,000 against American Family Life Assurance Company, and $2 million against the Crop Growers Corporation. This corruption is rampant, and you can't stop it unless you get this constitutional amendment. Everyone understands what Justice Kennedy said--that you are not going to have this covert speech. You are not going around, and you are not going to employees, because the name of the game is--I know because I ran for President. I know one State that I believe I could have taken, but the one who succeeded in taking it spent x thousands of dollars above the limit. It was 2 years later they found out that he spent over the limit. That was the end of that. What I am saying is, you can't control this. It is a Federal election campaign practices commission because it is all ex post facto. It is lost in the dust. This has been going on, particularly with you and I serving in the Senate. We can't talk sense, we can't debate, we can't get measures up, and we can't deliberate because we have been corrupted by the money chase. Mondays and Fridays, gone; Tuesday morning, gone; windows here and there and yonder for lunches, dinners, fund raisers, breaks now every month of the year. Why: They go raise some more money, and we are not getting the work of the people done. I was here when it worked, when we met at 9 o'clock on Monday morning. Nobody was here at 9 o'clock this Monday morning. Nobody is here now because they are all out raising money. I can tell you, we worked until Friday afternoon at 5 o'clock. Ask Senator Byrd. He remembers. He knows how hard we worked in those days when he was leader. But the system and the Buckley v. Valeo cancer are overtaking all of us. We are all part of it. I have asked for windows, and I have had to chase at holidays. I continue to do so. I am saying to myself and to all of us that it is time we sort of fess up and understand that this has to stop. We have to start working on behalf of the people and not ourselves. Let's do away with the corruption. Let's get back to the original intent of Buckley v. Valeo, which was totally bipartisan and overwhelmingly passed. That was to limit spending or stop the buying of the office. We had that enough in 1978, which I explained because I know what was called upon in cash moneys in my particular State. It was listed all over the country. Connolly asked the President, and he went down to collect. They put up with Dick Tuck in the Brinks truck as it turned into the ranch in order to have the barbecue so the President could thank his contributors whom he had not even met. We all were so embarrassed. It is bad when there is not even any embarrassment in this body. The corruption is exacerbated. I learned that word having come to Washington--``exacerbate.'' It continues to exacerbate, and it gets worse and worse. I yield back the remainder of our time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, this amendment is offered on behalf of myself, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, and the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. Let me go right to the heart of some comments just made because I want to emphasize what the distinguished Senator from North Dakota said. One, with respect to the matter of actually passing a statute whereby the statute would suffice, I only refer specifically, because I have been reading it at length, to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Nixon v. Shrink, that for nearly a half century the Court has extended first amendment protection to a multitude of forms of speech, such as making false inflammatory statements, filing lawsuits, dancing nude, exhibiting drive-in movies with nudity, burning flags, and wearing military uniforms. It goes on to cite even more examples. That is why this Senator would not vote for the statute. I think that is dancing around the fire and a putoff. On the contrary, I intend to support the constitutional amendment. But I do agree with the observation of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota that the Constitution should not be amended lightly, and, as the Senator stated, not amended when there are other ways. There is a definite difference between the matter of burning the flag--there is really no threat to the Republic. There is no threat to our democracy. There is no corruption. I do not like it; others do not like it. I hope we can pass the amendment. But there is basis for the concern that a constitutional amendment is not in order because there is no threat to the Republic. We have seen and, unfortunately, been hardened in a sense to observing the flag being burned. I happen to be like the man: Convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. They can keep on saying that is constitutional. I do not believe it. I think an amendment to the Constitution is necessary. But only look around us. Where is everybody? Out raising money. The Senator from South Carolina is not charging that an individual is bribed. I know of no bribes. That is not my argument. My argument and position is that this Congress, the process, and the Government have been corrupted by the money chase. We all know the amount of money. But all you have to do is have been around here for 30-some years and you get the feel, very definitely, that the money chase has taken over and we are thoroughly corrupted. I say that because here it is Monday. It is really a wash day. There are no votes. There is nobody here to hear you. This is no deliberative body. That is really a nasty joke on all of us because we do not deliberate anymore. I remember over 30 years ago when we would come in on Monday morning and work all day, have votes at 9 o'clock on Monday morning, go throughout Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and hope to get through by 5 on Friday and take Saturday and Sunday off and go back to work on Monday. But we start the week here with no votes, nobody around, no deliberation, no exchange of ideas, no legislation, just a sort of fill-in so you can give those who are concerned their time at bat, limited as it is, because it is only half time. Nobody is here to listen, so you can learn the fallacy in your arguments or the substance thereof. But there is no really good exchange out here by the Members themselves. Monday is gone, and Tuesday morning follows suit because we have to wait for everybody to get back from their Monday evening fundraisers. Then we have Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday is gone. If you don't think it is corrupted, go up and ask the majority leader, if you please, to take up a bill. ``Oh'', he says, ``wait a minute, that might take 3 or 4 days.'' It's a given, that you are not going to call a bill that is going to take 3 or 4 days of consideration and debate by colleagues. It is not going to be called. Nothing is called unless the jury is fixed. Why haven't we taken up the budget? Because they haven't been able to fix the vote of the Senator from Texas. They fixed all the others. They got them in line. I don't know what their budget is. There has been give and take among the members on the Budget Committee on the Republican side, but we on the Democratic side have yet to see a budget, even though it is the end of March. We are supposed to have had the markup for several weeks and be ready to report it out by this weekend. We do have notice, but you can bet your boots if we come together tomorrow afternoon and Thursday, they will use Thursday night and the threat of, ``wait a minute, you will have to work on Friday, so hurry up, let's vote until 1 o'clock in the morning,'' whatever it is, because none of your amendments is going to pass; we have the votes. That is the most deliberative process. That is the corruption the money chase has gotten us into. You can't consider anything here. Come Tuesday, they say, ``well, we will have a caucus.'' In the main, that is about money and how we are going to collect it, and how we will dock each other so many thousands of dollars, and who has been to meetings, and everything else of that kind. Otherwise, come evening, ``hurry up and let's adjourn early because I have a fundraiser Tuesday evening.'' Or, on Wednesday we have a window. ``Can we make sure; I have to go all the way downtown at lunchtime, so let's not have any real conduct of the Senate or work of the Congress because I want a window so we can go down and have that fundraiser; or wait until the evening.'' The same thing occurs on Thursday. By the way, there is a special Wednesday afternoon set up where we are supposed to go over to our campaign committees and get on the phone for hours in the afternoon. To do what? To call for money. I thought when we got elected, the campaign was over and we were going to work for the people. Instead, we go to work for ourselves. The entire process has been corrupted. That is why we need a constitutional amendment. No, not likely. We have tried for 25 years to get around Buckley v. Valeo. We got a little squeak from Justice Stevens in the Nixon v. Shrink decision. He said: Money is property, not speech. But he was only one. The rest of the Court, in other words, had every opportunity to consider it being property and not speech, but they reiterated Nixon v. Shrink, that money is speech. My gracious, if you read that dissenting opinion with Scalia and the other two Justices, they read it to go with removing the limits on contributions. Just buy it. This thing is a real disaster; it is an embarrassment. Just coming on the floor, they called my staff and said: Why in the world would you want to amend the Constitution here but not with the flag? Well, of course, I corrected that. I would amend the Constitution with the flag. But those who have some concern about the flag amendment to the Constitution need not hesitate with respect to this particular amendment. Otherwise, they have been living in a cocoon somewhere, or they have been in China during the last campaign, because all you have to do is look at the primaries and see that the one thing, whether it was Independent, Democratic, Republican or any other kind of votes, that they were trying to clean up this system. Senator Gore, Vice President Gore, got the message. He said: The first thing I will do as President of the United States is introduce McCain-Feingold and do away with soft money. Governor George W. Bush said that was a terrible thing. I read that in the news. But I remembered back to January 23, in his interview with George Will, when Governor Bush said soft money, both corporate and labor, should be banned. I agree. But I will have to agree with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky that it is patently unconstitutional according to the Court. All we are trying to do is constitutionalize McCain-Feingold or any and every other idea you want, whether you want to publicly finance, whether you want to give free TV time, whether you want to limit, whether you want to not limit, whether you want to increase the limit--whatever you want to do. Don't give me the argument on this one because this only constitutionalizes your particular idea. Let me read exactly what it says: Congress shall have the power to set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, or for the election to, Federal office. We have had this up for over 10 years, Senator Specter and myself. I have had it up for over 20 years. I can tell you, the States in unanimity, the Governors' conference and all, came and said: Please put us in. We have the same problem, not just for Federal office but for State office. It is costing $1 million to get elected to the city council. It has corrupted the entire process over the land, and everybody knows it. Section 2--this is why we added it-- A State shall have power to set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination for election to, or for election to, State or local office. Of course, Congress is empowered to implement and enforce the article by appropriate legislation. That is a very simple amendment. You can bet your boots it is far more important at this particular hour of our history. The 27th amendment has to do with our pay. Well, it is certainly more important than the Fed raising his pay because if he votes that way, they are going to jump all over him at the next election. So they didn't even need this. This was just puffing and blowing and demonstrating and flagellating. That is all we have been doing up here this year. We figured as long as we could put the people off and sneak back in, we could get the money to buy the time to buy the office. The 22nd amendment, Presidential term limits. More important than that. The 23rd amendment, D.C. electoral votes. This is more important--this particular corruption to be corrected. The elimination of the poll tax, the 24th amendment, and the 25th amendment, Presidential succession. The 26th amendment, giving 18-year-olds the right to vote. You have taken away the vote of all the people, not just the 18-year-olds. I ask unanimous consent that this short article be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I understand that the Senator from West Virginia is not going to use that 30 minutes. So I am authorized to yield back that time. I yield back Senator Byrd's 30 minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, has the amendment been reported?

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

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask that the clerk report the amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No objection.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate my friend and colleague, Ted Stevens, on being named Alaskan of the Century. From his efforts to achieve Alaskan statehood to his work on behalf of the State of Alaska, Ted Stevens has dedicated his life to public service and proven his leadership both in his home state and in the United States Senate. I know of no one more deserving of this honor. I am proud to have the opportunity to know and work with him and I extend him my heartfelt congratulations on this momentous occasion.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize one of Charleston, South Carolina's finest and feistiest community activists, Thelma ``TC'' Drayton. People who have known my friend TC over the years will tell you that nothing, and I mean nothing, stands in her way in spurring the East Side community to action. Thanks in large part to TC's hurricane-force commitment, the at-risk neighborhood where she has lived for 53 years is cleaner, safer and more in control of its destiny. Last week, the community acknowledged her many contributions when Agape Ministries established the TC Drayton Award for volunteerism to be presented each year. Volunteers in search of encouragement during tough times need look no further than TC's example. Like Charleston's East Side, which developers have begun to acquire an appetite for, TC Drayton is up against a formidable foe these days. She is fighting her battle against lung cancer with characteristic force and optimism. She hopes to retire from her job as community liaison with the city of Charleston and devote more time to volunteer projects. One that is closest to her heart is a new Agape project known as COAT--Coalition of Older Americans Task Force. TC has always been quick to lend a hand to older members of her church family at Friendship Baptist and would like to extend her reach to other seniors in need. We all wish TC a speedy recovery and a chance to touch even more lives in Charleston. She is a credit to South Carolina, deserving of all the accolades that she receives.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and want to work with him and the FAA on this project. Let me say to the gentleman that I will work with him to determine what options may be available to Louisiana Tech with respect to this matter.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman, Senator Rockefeller. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill, appropriately known as the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, or FAIR-21. This legislation rightfully deserves this title for two basic reasons: it represents a fair compromise and it honors the former Chairman and later ranking Member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Ford. Before commenting on the substantive provisions of the conference agreement, I think it is essential to commend those who are responsible for achieving the compromise we have before us. However, because of the number of individuals who have been instrumental in forging this agreement, engaging in this exercise is sort of like the Academy Awards shows, where the winner gets to list all of the people he needs to thank in 30 seconds. I believe FEDEX had a commercial a few years ago with a fast talking person, and I shall try to do the same here. First, I wish to commend Chairman Shuster, Congressman Oberstar, and Senators Rockefeller and Gorton for their unflagging leadership in reaching this agreement. I should note that Senator Lott left no stones unturned to move this bill. As well, Senators Stevens and Domenici played pivotal roles. All of the Conferees and their staff did their part to accomplish an enormous task. After much hard work and many long hours we have a good, strong bill, which addresses many of the most critical aviation issues facing us today --the proper funding for the modernization of our air traffic control system and airport infrastructure. Before explaining a little about the bill, I want to address one of the concerns that has been raised. I know that Senator Lautenberg has concerns about this bill and what it means for other programs. The reality is that for years we have underfunded the FAA, despite the fact that the Airport and Airways Trust Fund has acummulated an uncommitted surplus, approximating $7-8 billion per year. The surplus is currently at $13 billion. Essentially, we have used those monies to meet other priorities. Today, we end that game, by making sure that all monies in the Trust Fund go to aviation. We also recognize that if more is needed, and it will be, then the general fund will be called upon. Bear in mind that the FAA and its ATC system provide services not only to the commerical and general aviation fleets, but also to our military. The FAA also plays a key role in our national security by keeping our skies and airports safe. We know that when the Trust Fund was created in 1970, it was intended solely for modernization/capital improvements. The preamble to the statute was as valid then as it is today--it reads ``That the Nation's airport and airways system is inadequate to meet the current and projected growth in aviation. That substantial expansion and improvement of airport and airway system is required to meet the demands of interstate commerce, the postal service and national defense''. In fact, to clarify that it was intended for capital only, Congress in 1971 deleted the phrase ``administrative expenses'' as an eligible item for spending. During the first years of the Trust Fund, with one year's exception, no Trust Fund monies were spent on the general operations of the FAA. In 1977, Congress allowed left over funds to be used for salaries and expenses of the FAA. Today, we are returning to the original intent--monies first for capital needs, with any remaing funds to be used for other expenses. If a general fund is needed, then it will be subject to appropriations. We have little choice. There is no question we must invest in our future. We must expand the system to keep it safe, and to make it more efficient. There is one other point--modernization of the ATC system involves not only Federal spending, but also a committment from the private sector. As we move to a satellite-based system, the air carriers and general aviation must make an investment in new technology in the cockpit. Finally, it is my understanding that the Transportation function 400 numbers in the Budget resolution will reflect the agreement reached here today, which should quell some of the concerns of my colleague from New Jersey. Aviation is an integral part of the overall U.S. transportation infrastructure and plays a critical role in our national economy. Each day our air transportation system moves millions of people and billions of dollars of cargo. The U.S. commercial aviation industry recorded its fifth consecutive year of traffic growth, while the general aviation industry enjoyed a banner year in shipments and aircraft activity at FAA air traffic facilities. Continued economic expansion in the U.S. and around the globe will continue to fuel the exponential growth in domestic and international enplanements. The FAA is forecasting that by 2009, enplanements are expected to grow to more than 1 billion by 2009, compared to 650 million last year. During this time, total International passenger traffic between the United States and the rest of the world is projected to increase 82.6 percent. International passenger traffic carried on U.S. Flag carriers is forecast to increase 94.2 percent. These percentages represent a dramatic increase in the actual number of people using the air system. More people, more planes, more delays. Those are the headlines we know are coming. We know today that the growth in air travel has placed a strain on the aviation system and our own nerves as we travel. In 1998, 25% of flights by major air carriers were delayed. MITRE, the FAA's federally-funded research and development organization, estimates that just to maintain delays at current levels in 2015, a 60% increase in airport capacity will be needed. As many of you may know, and perhaps have experienced first hand, delays reached an all-time high this summer. These delays are inordinately costly to both the carriers and the traveling public; in fact, according to the Air Transport Association, delays cost the airlines and travelers more than $4 billion per year. We cannot ignore the numbers. These statistics underscore the necessity of properly funding our investment--we must modernize our Air Traffic Control system and expand our airport infrastructure. Gridlock in the skies is a certainty unless the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is modernized. A system-wide delay increase of just a few minutes per flight will bring commercial operations to a halt according to the National Civil Aviation Review Commission and American Airlines. According to a study by the White House Commission on Aviation Security and Safety, dated January 1997, the modernization of the ATC system should be expedited to completion by 2005 instead of 2015. FAIR 21 would authorize the Facilities and Equipment (ATC equipment) at $2.660 billion, $2.914 billion, and $2.981 billion for FY01-FY03, respectively. This represents a 30% increase in funding. For the first time ever, FAIR 21 links the spending in the Facilities and Equipment account and the Airport Improvement Program to the monies in the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. As our skies and runways become more crowded than ever, it is crucial that we redouble our commitment to safety. Passengers deserve the most up to date in safety measures. FAIR-21 ensures that there will be money available to pay for new runway incursion devices as well as windshear detection equipment. The bill requires all large cargo airplanes install collision avoidance equipment. In an effort to support the ongoing improvements at civil and cargo airports, FAIR-21 increases funding for the improvement of training for security screeners. We also have provided whistleblower protection to aid in our safety efforts and protect workers willing to expose safety problems. FAIR 21 will allow airports to increase their passenger facility charges from $3 to $4.50. This is a local choice and it is money which an airport can use to encourage new entry, particularly at the 15 ``fortress hubs'' where one carrier controls more than 50% of the traffic. Logically, the air fares for the communities dependant upon these hubs are much higher than usual. If given a choice, perhaps we would have broken up the hubs. Instead, we have used the power of the dollar and a half to require these hubs to develop ways to allow new carriers to expand as to create the possibility of lower fares to places like Charleston, SC. The extra buck and a half will go to expand gates and terminal areas, as well as runways at these facilities. Since 1996, we have struggled with how to develop meaningful reform of the FAA. We have met the majority of the suggestions with the exception of the recommendations to establish a fee system and to set up a private corporation to run air traffic control. Instead, we chose a more prudent path. The 1996 reauthorization bill established a 15 member Management Advisory Committee (MAC) appointed by the President with Senate confirmation but no one has yet to be named. Jane Garvey, the FAA Administrator, is doing a wonderful job, but she could have used some help. To avoid this in the future, FAIR-21 establishes a subcommittee of the MAC to oversee air traffic operations with the appointments being made by the Secretary of Transportation rather than the President. The bill also establishes a position for a chief operating officer. Combined with other measures, and the funding levels, we are on the right track. I wish to say a word about our controllers, technicians and the FAA workforce. I know that the bill as crafted does not guarantee a general fund contribution to pay for the operations of the FAA. However, it should be acknowledged that these folks work hard every day to keep us flying safely. The safety of the nation is in their hands. They deserve our support. Finally but not least, in terms of Death on the High Seas, after much input from the families of the victims of many of the air tragedies, we have clarified the law and extending the borders of the United States to 12 miles off shore for the purpose of determining claims. In the case of an accident occurring 12 miles or within the shore, the Death on the High Seas Act shall not apply. Rather, it is state, federal, and any other applicable laws which shall apply. Death on the High Seas shall apply only outside of 12 miles off shore. Mr. President, let me commend Mr. Shuster, the chairman on the House side. He stuck to his guns. It has been a long struggle in the open and in the dark. I only mention that because my colleague from New Jersey said this thing was all agreed to in the dark. We have been in the dark and in the open and everything else for 2 years on this struggle. Mr. Shuster stuck to his guns, whereby those air travelers who obtain the taxes that go into the airport and airways improvement fund are finally being assured that money is going to be spent on the airport and airways improvement. Right to the point: We owe some $12 billion right this minute for airport taxes that have been used for everything from Kosovo to food stamps, and everything else but airport and airways improvement. In fact, we now have some $l.95 billion to be expended this fiscal year, 2000. We were unable to get those moneys, although they were in the fund, supposedly--IOU slips, if you will. We are now able to spend those moneys. I have the same misgivings the ranking member of our subcommittee has about the shortfalls in the operating budget. That is due to so-called ``unrealistic spending caps.'' That is a budget problem--not this bill's problem. There is a problem with unrealistic spending caps. There is state-of-the-art equipment sitting in warehouses, and that is because we have been playing a sordid game of trying to call a ``deficit'' a ``surplus'' and grabbing any and all moneys we can to play a game to make it look as if we are reducing spending. The fact is the President submits his budget, and we in the Congress--this Republican Congress, if you please--have been increasing spending over and above what President Clinton has asked for during the past 7 or 8 years. We are not willing to pay for it. So we rob Social Security. We rob the retirement of the military and civil service. We robbed the highway funds, up until we finally got that straightened out under the leadership of Mr. Shuster. Now we can hold onto our airport moneys and do the job that is required of us. I want to say to everyone involved that this has been a good 2-year struggle to get us where we are. It is a good bill. It was developed in a bipartisan way, with every consideration given to not only the budget problems and concern the Senator from New Jersey has, but also my concerns about overall air traffic. We are moving finally in the right direction. I hope everybody will vote in support of the conference report. I yield back the remainder of our time. amtrak and coast guard funding

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I, along with Senator Thurmond, introduce a series of duty suspensions designed to permit the import of raw materials into the United States duty free. The materials are not indigenous to or made in the United States. Therefore, their importation will not displace domestic sourcing. Moreover, because of the nature of the products at issue, they will assist in the creation of additional jobs in the United States. I believe this is the most appropriate use of such legislation. The imported product will not displace any that is manufactured in the United States. Moreover, the imported product will assist in enhancing American productive capacity. I am, therefore, hopeful that this new capacity can be used to supply both domestic and foreign needs and will increase employment in the United States.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes on my allotted time.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the reason I asked for the extra time is, in addressing the Senate with respect to the Education Savings Act, I was going to make the point that we weren't saving and we had no money for this particular act. The act will cost the government $2 billion. But the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of our Budget Committee, says the Senator from South Carolina sees the surplus differently than he sees a surplus. Let me go right to the minute here on 2/23, the public debt to the penny. You can go to the Internet and, under the law, find that the Department of Treasury lists to the penny and by the minute the exact amount of the public debt. It isn't what the Senator from New Mexico calls a debt or surplus. It isn't what the Senator from South Carolina calls a debt or surplus. It is what we call a debt under the Public Law. The public debt to the minute right now--I just took it off the Internet two minutes ago--is $5,744,135,736,409.24 I ask unanimous consent to print this in the Record at this point.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to bring to the Senate's attention an article from today's TheStreet.Com entitled ``DoubleClick Exec Says Privacy Legislation Needn't Crimp Results.'' For many Americans, the fear of a loss of personal privacy on the Internet represents the last hurdle impeding their full embrace of this exciting and promising new medium. In addition, many other Internet users unfortunately are today unaware of the significant amount of information profiling that is occurring every time they visit a web site. Notwithstanding the significant privacy concerns raised by such surreptitious activity, many companies continue to oppose even a basic regulatory framework that would ensure the protection of consumers' privacy on the Internet--a basic framework that has been successfully adopted with respect to other areas of our economy. That is why I was so pleased to see a leading Internet Executive from DoubleClick state that his company would not ``face an insurmountable problem'' in attempting to operate under strict privacy rules. Complying with such rules is ``not rocket science,'' the executive stated, ``It's execution.'' Obviously, what this gentleman has asserted is that strict privacy rules would not impede the basic functionality and commercial activity on the Internet. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to draft legislation in this area and hope that others in industry will join DoubleClick's apparent willingness to implement pro-consumer privacy rules. I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled ``DoubleClick Exec Says Privacy Legislation Needn't Crimp Results'' be printed in the Record.