Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have, in the last few minutes, secured what I observed last evening on television by a statement by the most distinguished of distinguished Senators--there is none more responsible--the distinguished Senator from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch. I now have his news release, Judiciary Committee, dated January 21, 1997. I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Look, I have cosponsored a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I voted for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. But I am not going to, by gosh, play tricks with the Social Security trust fund and repeal the law that I worked so diligently to have enacted and signed, on November 5, 1990, by George Walker Herbert Bush into law. So we said: Not one vote of Senator Hatfield from Oregon, here, Mr. Leader Dole, you can pick up five votes. I cannot speak for the other four this morning. I have not checked with them. But he can get the vote of this particular Senator from South Carolina, if they write the constitutional amendment so as not to violate the trust that we so formally voted into law.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Let me thank my distinguished colleague from North Dakota. Senator Dorgan has been forthright and persistent on this particular score. He has given us the necessary leadership to bring truth in budgeting. I will never forget when we started out in this budget process back in 1973 and 1974--and I am the only remaining Member in either body, House and Senate, that still serves on that Budget Committee--the litany was all for a 10-year period and, particularly up through Gramm- Rudman-Hollings, about truth in budgeting. No more smoke and mirrors, no more rosy scenarios and those kinds of things--certainly no use of trust funds to obscure the actual size of the deficit. It is very easy to determine what a deficit is. All you need to do is find out what the debt is this year and then what the debt is the ensuing year, and a simple subtraction will determine for you, if you please, that the debt this past fiscal year, for 1996, was $261 billion--not $107 billion. Not $107 billion, $261 billion. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, if you please, a chart which shows that the U.S. budget ``busts'' the trust funds. It shows the trust fund surpluses, the real deficit, the gross Federal debt, and the gross interest costs.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I refer, on page 29, to the additional views, by Mr. Domenici, the present chairman of our Budget Committee. I quote: I voted for Senator Hollings' proposal because I support the concept of taking Social Security out of the budget deficit calculation. But I cast this vote with reservations. And what was his reservation? It was that my provision was not strong enough. He wanted to build a firewall. He goes on to say: We need a firewall around those trust funds to make sure the reserves are there to pay Social Security benefits in the next century. Without a firewall or the discipline of budget constraints, the trust funds would be unprotected and could be spent on any number of costly programs. I ask unanimous consent that these additional views of the distinguished chairman, the Senator from New Mexico, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. You will see that we had in 1995 a debt of $4.920 trillion and a gross debt in 1996 of $5.181 trillion. So the difference was $261 billion. And the reason that we listed the $107 billion is because we borrowed $66 billion from Social Security, a net of some $10 billion from Medicare, some $42 billion from the military and civilian retirement funds, banking and Treasury loans amounted to some $36 billion, for a total of $154 billion. Trying to put Government on a pay-as-you-go basis has been my intent since I arrived here 30 years ago. I balanced the budget in South Carolina, and as Governor I received the first AAA credit rating of any Southern State, ahead of Texas on up through Maryland. I am proud of running Government on a pay-as-you-go basis. I worked with George Mahon back in 1968-69, and we balanced the budget under President Lyndon Johnson. Incidentally, we did not use Social Security trust funds. Even though he changed it to the unified budget, at this particular time the use of the funds was not necessary to balance the budget. So we have to credit President Johnson with the last balanced budget we have had in that 30- year period. By the early 1980's, we realized that Social Security was going broke, and we came in here in a very formal fashion after a wonderful study by Alan Greenspan, the present Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. We passed the Greenspan Commission program of tax increases in order to make Social Security solvent. Let me go right now to the Greenspan Commission report, and you will find therein that ``a majority of the members of the national commission recommends that the operations of the OASI, DI, HI, SMI, trust funds,'' which is Social Security trust funds, ``should be removed from the unified budget. The national commission believes that changes in Social Security programs should be made only for programmatic reasons,'' and not--not--Mr. President, for balancing the budget. When we debated this, we increased the taxes so that we would keep Social Security solvent until the distinguished occupant of the Chair was ready to receive his amount. This particular Senator is already receiving it. I am paying into Social Security. Senator Thurmond and I are also receiving Social Security. But, Mr. President, you are not going to receive it under the Domenici balanced budget to the Constitution. They absolutely prohibit it in the wording of this particular amendment. Let me show you exactly what I am saying. You come right now to the resolution, S.J. Res. 1, just put in a couple days ago, and you will find: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the U.S. Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the U.S. Government except for those for repayment of debt. That repeals section 13-301. And if there were any doubt about it, let us read section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year. I repeat very calmly, very clearly: ``Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year--unless three-fifths of the whole Congress votes it.'' So that means that the very intent of the Greenspan Commission, namely that surpluses be built up to protect the baby boomers into the next generation--that money, even if it were saved, even if the surplus were built up and not being expended, as is the case--that money under this particular constitutional amendment could not be expended. You would have to cut right straight across the board. And let me be specific on just exactly what the Greenspan Commission stated at that particular time. If you refer to statement 5 on page 2, they talk about for the ``75-year valuation period, ending with 2056.'' You can move on further. They refer to 75 years several times in the report. On page 5, statement 5, 75 years. They were trying to provide solvency to the year 2056. In the 75 years ending in 2056, we were going to have a solvent surplus, a redeemable Social Security trust fund. And they recommended it be put off budget, not included in the unified budget, and not expended for other matters. Now, let us get to that particular point about the taxes Congress voted for in 1983, because when you continue doing what we are doing now, you violate the trust. Back in 1983 we did not vote an increase in the payroll taxes for defense or for housing or for welfare or for foreign aid or for the expenses of the President or the Congress. It was a trust fund. You would have never gotten a majority vote in this national Government, in this Congress of the United States; you would have never gotten an affirmative vote, as we did in a bipartisan fashion, to increase the payroll taxes for the other instances of Government. We all pledged that that money was going into Social Security, and to make sure that the trust was maintained we voted it formally in July 1990. I refer, as a past chairman of the Budget Committee, to the conference report of the Committee on the Budget on the Social Security Preservation Act, dated July 10, 1990. If you see, at that particular point on page 20, there was a Hollings motion to report the Social Security Preservation Act. It passed by a vote of 20 to 1--only the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, voted against it. All of the other present Senators voted it out at that particular time. Then, of course, later on the floor of the U.S. Senate we had a vote of 98 to 2. It was on October 18, 1990. A bipartisan vote of 98 Senators here said, Take Social Security and put it out as a trust fund, not a unified budget. It is very interesting to read in this particular Social Security Preservation Act, the language--and I want all the Members' attention to this, because this is the present chairman of the Budget Committee-- I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I quote from this release. Hatch noted that opponents to a constitutional amendment have tried and will continue to try to divert attention from the pressing issue of controlling our Nation's debt. The fact is, contrary to the opponents' scare tactics, the balanced budget amendment would ensure the long-term stability of Social Security and other retirement investments of every American as well as long-term growth of the United States economy. Absolutely the contrary is the case. Absolutely the contrary is the case. You are not going to ``ensure the long-term stability of Social Security'' with this particular amendment. This is the Senator that put it into the Budget Committee back in July 1990 where we voted 20 to 1 to protect Social Security. Thereupon, on the floor of this Senate, 98 Senators--the distinguished Presiding Officer was not present at that particular time--but 98 Senators voted in the affirmative, section 13-301 of the Budget Act signed into law by President Bush. That is what section 1 and section 7 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 does--vitiate, or to use the language that I included from the particular quote, ``eviscerate the intent of the Greenspan Commission.'' All this, after I worked to put into the law a provision saying ``Thou shalt not use Social Security trust funds to obscure the size of the deficit.'' When you use that $107 billion deficit for last year's figure, that is exactly what you are doing. So this is not a scare tactic. Unfortunately, the media has picked up on the diversion because, as you can see this morning's paper here, our friend Eric Pearman here says, ``President Clinton intends to raise concerns about the potential impact of the amendment on the Social Security trust fund, a tactic Democrats used last time to defeat the amendment.'' This is no tactic. I have not talked to President Clinton about it. In a way, I do not welcome his joining in because it tries to make it a partisan issue. It was bipartisan, 98 votes of 100 in this Senate when we put into law section 13-301. It was a Republican President that signed that into law. So it was not any Democratic tactic. It is truth in budgeting. And that is what we have a difficult time with. You can see again in here--and I use the quote from our distinguished colleague from Utah: Last Congress when the amendment failed by a mere one vote of passage in the Senate, I vowed that we would be back to try and pass this amendment and put America back on the course of fiscal responsibility, the Senator added. Every one of the 55 Republicans in the Senate are original cosponsors, and we are joined by 7 strong Democrats, giving us 62 original cosponsors. If only five other Senators join us, we will have the votes necessary. If everyone keeps their promises to their constituents and votes as they said they would before the November elections, we will pass a balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, it wasn't one vote, it was five votes. And we had the five votes. We included it. I have that letter, Mr. President, for the Congressional Record. Here it is, dated March 1, 1995. We said at that particular time to Leader Dole, five Democratic Senators. It didn't fail by one vote, as they keep on saying. They had every opportunity to pass it, and they have every opportunity, I think, right at this moment to pass it. They say ``If everyone keeps their promises to their constituents,'' but they want to eviscerate the commitment we have made to Social Security. When they voted in 1990, that was a promise to their constituents in law. It is formalized in law, section 13301 of the Budget Act. That is what we are trying to do, keep our promises to our constituents. That is what we are doing, trying to keep our promise to the Greenspan Commission. When we raised the taxes, we didn't raise the taxes for foreign aid and welfare and food stamps. We raised the taxes for the Social Security trust fund--not for the seniors today, but as the Greenspan Commission report says, for the baby boomers in the next century. That is what we are trying to do. That is why we are having such a difficult time. The media is looking only at today's politics, and the seniors could not be less interested in today's politics. They are concentrating on Medicare and their health costs. They know there is a big surplus that is already built up. So they are going to get their Social Security checks. But it's the baby boomers who are now misled into IRA's and investments in the stock market and everything else, because they almost believe, to a man or woman, that they are never going to get that money. And we continue to make sure they don't get that money by passing Senate Joint Resolution 1. Now, I have talked to the leadership and said, ``Turn it around and make certain that we can carry out the trust that we instituted into law back in 1990.'' We voted for this again last year in another vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate by an overwhelming 86 votes. If we can carry out that promise to our constituents, you've got the Senator from South Carolina. I believe in a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have cosponsored it. I have introduced it. I have voted for it. But not with this situation here, where having passed it into law, I am supposed to vote to repeal my own trust and repeal my own law that I worked so hard on the Budget Committee to get. We had a conscience in those days. We had a conscience. Now, it's all gimmickry, it's all pollster politics, unfortunately, on the floor of the National Government. Anything that is momentary, we fall. And right to the point, we are not really taking care of the needs of America. I was on a panel--since we have a few moments--recently of 18 distinguished Senators and myself, and the question was, how could President Clinton make his mark now in history during the next 4 years? And the conventional wisdom right across the board with this particular panel, Mr. President, was that, look, there is not going to be any honeymoon. The Democrats are after Gingrich, and Gingrich was after Gingrich. So any honeymoon would be short-lived. Very little would happen on the domestic front here in the next 4 years, just a little incremental adjustment perhaps on Medicare, a little bit on welfare. But the President's opportunity to make his mark in history was in foreign policy. They recommended--and it was a bipartisan group--what we ought to do is get computers to the third world, get technology to the emerging nations. That would make his mark in history. When you drive home today, go down by Foggy Bottom, as I do, by the Watergate, and you will see the homeless lying on the streets of America. You will find this city in crime. You will find the children on drugs. You will find that schools are down, illiteracy is up. You will find the infrastructure, roads and bridges, haven't been repaired in 20 years. And those who are lucky enough to have a job are making less than what they were making some 20 years ago. As we work on that NIH budget, the medical brains of America come with these research grants, but 80 percent of the grants which are approved go unfunded. Medical and other research is languishing in this land. And here during this 4 years, we don't have a war, inflation is down, and the deficit is coming down, to President Clinton's credit. The economy, generally speaking--the stock market--is strong. So this is a beautiful opportunity. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, where we had to sacrifice our economy heretofore during that 50-year period, we can now rebuild that economy. We can come in now and flesh out the meaningful programs that save us money in the long run. There is no question that only 50 percent of those on Women, Infants, and Children, Head Start, and title I for the disadvantaged are funded here at the Federal level. Rather than Goals, let's flesh out monetarily those programs; let's get revenue sharing back rather than Goals 2000; give the communities the revenue sharing to rebuild our educational system, the roadbeds of our railroads, and the infrastructure of our highways and airports. Instead, the $50 billion is going to be frittered away with pollster politics: a little here on capital gains, a little bit here for families, a little bit over here for some higher education. We can do way more on Pell grants than tax cuts for higher education. We haven't fleshed that out for those eligible. We have a wonderful opportunity, but instead I am afraid we are on track now to get ourselves reelected. We are using the Government to get ourselves reelected. We are not responding to the needs, and the kick-off of this particular measure is totally political--Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I will cut the spending with you. We will withhold on programs with you. We will increase taxes, if you can get some votes around here. My plan would not only reduce the deficit, it would reduce the trade deficit. We are not willing to pay for what we are getting. That is the truth here in America.

Mr. HOLLINGS. You see, by subtracting last year's debt from this year's debt, the increase of the debt over the last fiscal year gives us a deficit of $261 billion. Immediately the question is: How do we all run around claiming that we have a $107 billion deficit? The truth of the matter is that we go and borrow from other trust funds. I ask unanimous consent at this particular point to have printed in the Record a list of those particular borrowings in trust funds.

Mr. HOLLINGS. So at that particular time, and when 98 percent of this U.S. Senate voted for it, we had, if you please, the distinguished chairman who was very much concerned that it was not enough protection. Now, here is what he writes today--you will see the difference here-- on January 13, 1997 to Republican colleagues, the statement of Senator Domenici to his Republican colleagues here earlier this month. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. You see, by subtracting last year's debt from this year's debt, the increase of the debt over the last fiscal year gives us a deficit of $261 billion. Immediately the question is: How do we all run around claiming that we have a $107 billion deficit? The truth of the matter is that we go and borrow from other trust funds. I ask unanimous consent at this particular point to have printed in the Record a list of those particular borrowings in trust funds.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, first I want to thank my colleague, Senator Daschle, for introducing this legislation in the Senate. Also, I must thank Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for taking the lead in the House in protecting mastectomy patients from new Health Management Organization [HMO] payment guidelines. Today, one in eight American women develop breast cancer, and they and their families will thank her when the bipartisan members of this Congress act to ensure that medical decisions for mastectomy patients are made by the doctors and patients involved in the case, rather than by HMO's or insurers. When I notified one constituent that I would help introduce legislation to guarantee women at least 48 hours of hospital coverage for mastectomies and 24 hours for lymph node removals, he asked ``what have we come to when we need legislation like this?'' What have we come to, indeed. Most Senators are not doctors, but common sense dictates that mastectomy is not generally an outpatient procedure. Not only the pain, but also the need to tend drainage tubes and the psychological shock usually require at least two days of medical care and adjustment, and often more. Unfortunately, managed care payment rules have led to cases where women are forced out of the hospital on the same day as their mastectomies, before spending a night in the hospital. These extreme cases are part of a nationwide reduction in hospital stays for women with breast cancer. Outpatient mastectomies have risen from less than two percent of mastectomies 5 years ago to nearly 8 percent now. Mastectomy patients overall now spend only half of the time in the hospital that they would have ten years ago--2-3 days rather than 4-6. Medical experts know that sometimes a shorter stay is appropriate or even requested by a patient who wants to get home and has access to adequate follow-up care. But we obviously need to take note of increased pressure to send women home early. Medical and personal considerations between the patient and attending physician, and not HMO financial rules, should be the determining factor. I am still collecting data in my home State of South Carolina, which is among the States least affected so far by HMO's. With our more personalized medicine, we have not seen the same-day discharges without an overnight stay. But South Carolina has a relatively high number of mastectomies and it appears that many South Carolina women stay 21 hours, or 23 hours in the hospital after their surgery. Again, something is wrong when patients tell me that they felt like the stay was too short, the newfound pain was still there, and the medical practitioners speak in terms of 21 or 23 hours. Obviously, this is someone's attempt to call a procedure ``outpatient'' by not covering 24 hours in the hospital, and it represents a more subtle affect of insurance payment rules on medicine which this Congress should consider. Mr. President, I will also join my colleagues, Senator D'Amato and Senator Snowe, in introducing slightly broader legislation. I am heartened that so many Senators of both parties are anxious to pass legislation in this area and I commend their bipartisanship. I invite all of my colleagues to join these efforts to make sure in this Congress that doctors and breast cancer patients, rather than insurers, determine the best length of stay in the hospital for each mastectomy case.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my collegue and cosponsor Senator Specter, to introduce for the sixth time a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending. Although I commend the efforts of the Minority Leader and others seeking to statutorily reform our campaign finance laws, I am convinced the only way to solve the chronic problems surrounding campaign financing is to reverse the Supreme Court's flawed decision in Buckley versus Valeo by adopting a constitutional amendment granting Congress the right to limit campaign spending. We all know the score--we're hamstrung by that decision and the ever increasing cost of a competitive campaign. With the total cost for congressional elections, just general elections, skyrocketing from $403 million in 1990 to over $626 million in 1996, the need for limits on campaign expenditures is more urgent than ever. For nearly a quarter of a century, Congress has tried to tackle runaway campaign spending with bills aimed at getting around the disjointed Buckley decision. Again and again, Congress has failed. Let us resolve not to repeat the mistakes of past campaign finance reform efforts, which have become bogged down in partisanship as Democrats and Republicans each tried to gore the other's sacred cows. During the 103d Congress there was a sign that we could move beyond this partisan bickering, when the Senate in a bipartisan fashion expressed its support for a constitutional amendment to limit campaign expenditures. In May 1993, a non-binding sense of the Senate resolution was agreed to which advocated the adoption of a constitutional amendment empowering Congress and States to limit campaign expenditures. Now it is time to take the next step. We must strike the decisive blow against the anything-goes fundraising and spending tolerated by both political parties. Looking beyond the current headlines regarding the source of these funds, the massive amount of money spent is astonishing and serves only to cement the commonly held belief that our elections are nothing more than auctions and that our politicians are up for sale. It is time to put a limit on the amount of money sloshing around campaign war chests. It is time to adopt a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending--a simple, straightforward, nonpartisan solution. As Prof. Gerald G. Ashdown has written in the New England Law Review, amending the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate campaign expenditures is ``the most theoretically attractive of the approaches- to-reform since, from a broad free speech perspective, the decision in Buckley is misguided and has worsened the campaign finance atmosphere.'' Adds Professor Ashdown: ``If Congress could constitutionally limit the campaign expenditures of individuals, candidates, and committees, along with contributions, most of the troubles * * * would be eliminated.'' Right to the point, back in 1974, Congress responded to the public's outrage over the Watergate scandals by passing, on a bipartisan basis, a comprehensive campaign finance law. The centerpiece of this reform was a limitation on campaign expenditures. Congress recognized that spending limits were the only rational alternative to a system that essentially awarded office to the highest bidder or wealthiest candidate. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court overturned these spending limits in its infamous Buckley versus Valeo decision of 1976. The Court mistakenly equated a candidate's right to spend unlimited sums of money with his right to free speech. In the face of spirited dissents, the Court came to the conclusion that limits on campaign contributions but not spending furthered ``* * * the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption'' and that this interest ``outweighs considerations of free speech.'' I have never been able to fathom why that same test--the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption-- does not overwhelmingly justify limits on campaign spending. The Court made a huge mistake. The fact is, spending limits in Federal campaigns would act to restore the free speech that has been eroded by the Buckley decision. After all, as a practical reality, what Buckley says is: Yes, if you have a fundraising advantage or personal wealth, then you have access to television, radio, and other media and you have freedom of speech. But if you do not have a fundraising advantage or personal wealth, then you are denied access. Instead of freedom of speech, you have only the freedom to say nothing. So let us be done with this phony charge that spending limits are somehow an attack on freedom of speech. As Justice Byron White points out, clear as a bell, in his dissent, both contribution limits and spending limits are neutral as to the content of speech and are not motivated by fear of the consequences of the political speech in general. Mr. President, every Senator realizes that television advertising is the name of the game in modern American politics. In warfare, if you control the air, you control the battlefield. In politics, if you control the airwaves, you control the tenor and focus of a campaign. Probably 80 percent of campaign communications take place through the medium of television. And most of that TV airtime comes at a dear price. In South Carolina, you're talking between $1,000 and $2,000 for 30 seconds of primetime advertising. In New York City, it's anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 for the same 30 seconds. The hard fact of life for a candidate is that if you're not on TV, you're not truly in the race. Wealthy challengers as well as incumbents flushed with money go directly to the TV studio. Those without a fundraising advantage or personal wealth are sidetracked to the time- consuming pursuit of cash. The Buckley decision created a double bind. It upheld restrictions on campaign contributions, but struck down restrictions on how much candidates with deep pockets can spend. The Court ignored the practical reality that if my opponent has only $50,000 to spend in a race and I have $1 million, then I can effectively deprive him of his speech. By failing to respond to my advertising, my cash-poor opponent will appear unwilling to speak up in his own defense. Justice Thurgood Marshall zeroed in on this disparity in his dissent to Buckley. By striking down the limit on what a candidate can spend, Justice Marshall said, ``It would appear to follow that the candidate with a substantial personal fortune at his disposal is off to a significant head start.'' Indeed, Justice Marshall went further: He argued that by upholding the limitations on contributions but striking down limits on overall spending, the Court put an additional premium on a candidate's personal wealth. Justice Marshall was dead right and Ross Perot and Steve Forbes have proved it. Massive spending of their personal fortunes immediately made them contenders. Our urgent task is to right the injustice of Buckley versus Valeo by empowering Congress to place caps on Federal campaign spending. We are all painfully aware of the uncontrolled escalation of campaign spending. The average cost of a winning Senate race was $1.2 million in 1980, rising to $2.9 million in 1984, and skyrocketing to $3.1 million in 1986, $3.7 million in 1988, and up to $4.3 in 1996. To raise that kind of money, the average Senator must raise over $13,800 a week, every week of his or her 6-year term. Overall spending in congressional races increased from $446 million in 1990 to more than $724 million in 1994--almost a 70 percent increase in 4 short years. I predict that when the final FEC reports are compiled for 1996, that figure will go even higher. This obsession with money distracts us from the people's business. It corrupts and degrades the entire political process. Fundraisers used to be arranged so they didn't conflict with the Senate schedule; nowadays, the Senate schedule is regularly shifted to accommodate fundraisers. I have run for statewide office 16 times in South Carolina. You establish a certain campaign routine, say, shaking hands at a mill shift in Greer, visiting a big country store outside of Belton, and so on. Over the years, they look for you and expect you to come around. But in recent years, those mill visits and dropping by the country store have become a casualty of the system. There is very little time for them. We're out chasing dollars. During my 1992 reelection campaign, I found myself raising money to get on TV to raise money to get on TV to raise money to get on TV. It's a vicious cycle. I remember Senator Richard Russell saying: ``They give you a 6-year term in this U.S. Senate: 2 years to be a statesman, the next 2 years to be a politician, and the last 2 years to be a demagogue.'' Regrettably, we are no longer afforded even 2 years as statesmen. We proceed straight to politics and demagoguery right after the election because of the imperatives of raising money. My proposed constitutional amendment would change all this. It would empower Congress to impose reasonable spending limits on Federal campaigns. For instance, we could impose a limit of, say, $800,000 per Senate candidate in a small State like South Carolina--a far cry from the millions spent by my opponent and me in 1992. And bear in mind that direct expenditures account for only a portion of total spending. For instance, my 1992 opponent's direct expenditures were supplemented by hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures by independent organizations and by the State and local Republican Party. When you total up spending from all sources, my challenger and I spent roughly the same amount in 1992. And incidentally, Mr. President, let's be done with the canard that spending limits would be a boon to incumbents, who supposedly already have name recognition and standing with the public and therefore begin with a built-in advantage over challengers. Nonsense. I hardly need to remind my Senate colleagues of the high rate of mortality in upper chamber elections. And as to the alleged invulnerability of incumbents in the House, I would simply note that well over 50 percent of the House membership has been replaced since the 1990 elections and just 3 weeks ago we swore in 15 new Senators. I can tell you from experience that any advantages of incumbency are more than counterbalanced by the obvious disadvantages of incumbency, specifically the disadvantage of defending hundreds of controversial votes in Congress. Moreover, Mr. President, I submit that once we have overall spending limits, it will matter little whether a candidate gets money from industry groups, or from PAC's, or from individuals. It is still a reasonable amount any way you cut it. Spending will be under control, and we will be able to account for every dollar going out. On the issue of PAC's, Mr. President, let me say that I have never believed that PAC's per se are an evil in the current system. On the contrary, PAC's are a very healthy instrumentality of politics. PAC's have brought people into the political process: nurses, educators, small business people, senior citizens, unionists, you name it. They permit people of modest means and limited individual influence to band together with others of mutual interest so their message is heard and known. For years we have encouraged these people to get involved, to participate. Yet now that they are participating, we turn around and say, ``Oh, no; your influence is corrupting, your money is tainted''. This is wrong. The evil to be corrected is not the abundance of participation but the superabundance of money. The culprit is runaway campaign spending. To a distressing degree, elections are determined not in the political marketplace but in the financial marketplace. Our elections are supposed to be contests of ideas, but too often they degenerate into megadollar derbies, paper chases through the board rooms of corporations and special interests. Mr. President, I repeat, campaign spending must be brought under control. The constitutional amendment Senator Specter and I have proposed would permit Congress to impose fair, responsible, workable limits on Federal campaign expenditures and allow States to do the same with regard to State and local elections. Such a reform would have four important impacts. First, it would end the mindless pursuits of ever-fatter campaign war chests. Second, it would free candidates from their current obsession with fundraising and allow them to focus more on issues and ideas; once elected to office, we wouldn't have to spend 20 percent of our time raising money to keep our seats. Third, it would curb the influence of special interests. And fourth, it would create a more level playing field for our Federal campaigns--a competitive environment where personal wealth does not give candidates an insurmountable advantage. Finally, Mr. President, a word about the advantages of the amend-the- Constitution approach that I propose. Recent history amply demonstrates the practicality and viability of this constitutional route. Certainly, it is not coincidence that five of the last seven amendments to the Constitution have dealt with Federal election issues. In elections, the process drives and shapes the end result. Election laws can skew election results, whether you're talking about a poll tax depriving minorities of their right to vote, or the absence of campaign spending limits giving an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates. These are profound issues which go to the heart of our democracy, and it is entirely appropriate that they be addressed through a constitutional amendment. And let's not be distracted by the argument that the amend-the- Constitution approach will take too long. Take too long? We have been dithering on this campaign finance issue since the early 1970's, and we haven't advanced the ball a single yard. All-the-while the Supreme Court continues to strike down campaign limit after campaign limit. It has been a quarter of a century, and no legislative solution has done the job. Except for the 27th amendment, the last five constitutional amendments took an average of 17 months to be adopted. There is no reason why we cannot pass this joint resolution, submit it to the States for a vote, and ratify the amendment in time for it to govern the 1998 election. Once passed by the Congress, the Joint Resolution goes directly to the States for ratification. Once ratified, it becomes the law of the land, and it is a Supreme Court challenge. And, by the way, I reject the argument that if we were to pass and ratify this amendment, Democrats and Republicans would be unable to hammer out a mutually acceptable formula of campaign expenditure limits. A Democratic Congress and Republican President did exactly that in 1974, and we can certainly do it again. Mr. President, this amendment will address the campaign finance mess directly, decisively, and with finality. The Supreme Court has chosen to ignore the overwhelming importance of media advertising in today's campaigns. In the Buckley decision, it prescribed a bogus if-you-have- the-money-you-can-talk version of free speech. In its place, I urge the Congress to move beyond these acrobatic attempts at legislating around the Buckley decision. As we have all seen, no matter how sincere, these plans are doomed to fail. The solution rests in fixing the Buckley decision. It is my hope that as the campaign financing debate unfolds, the Majority Leader will provide us with an opportunity to vote on this resolution--it is the only solution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on the Appropriations Committee we have always prided ourselves for having the best and most professional staff in the Senate. We maintain a team of staff who are experts on budget and finance and a group of professionals who know these agency programs inside and out. In a few days we will be losing one of our very best staff members to have ever served this body. Proctor Jones, the minority staff director for the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee will be retiring from the Senate to take a position in the private sector. Proctor Jones hails from Twin City, GA. He came to the Senate way back in 1960 as a special assistant to one of the greatest legislators to ever serve this institution, Senator Richard B. Russell. At that time Senator Russell was chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Proctor served as a special assistant working on military issues. From 1966 to 1968, Proctor took a leave of absence and served on active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps. In 1968, Proctor returned to the Senate and was assigned by Chairman Russell to work on the Appropriations Committee. In 1971, he was assigned to what was then known as the Subcommittee on Labor--Health, Education and Welfare. So, Proctor Jones and I have something in common. We both were close to Senator Richard B. Russell and considered him to be our mentor, and, like Proctor, Senator Russell also advised me that the only committee to be on is the Appropriations Committee. In 1973, Proctor took over as staff director for the Subcommittee on Public Works for Water and Power Development, and Atomic Energy Commission and Related Agencies. In 1978, this subcommittee was given its current name, Energy and Water Development. Since that time Proctor has served as staff director or minority staff director of that subcommittee. Simply put, Proctor Jones has been the Senate's go-to man on issues regarding Army Corps of Engineers' civil works, defense nuclear weapons development and environmental cleanup, scientific research, power marketing administrations, and other energy issues. Whether it was the Appalachian Regional Commission or biomedical research, the Members of the Senate could trust Proctor Jones to understand the impact that the energy and water development bill had in their States. Proctor understood that these programs affected real people, communities, and institutions. Of course, it is difficult to speak about Proctor Joines without also referring to Senator J. Bennett Johnston. In 1978, Senator Johnston took over as chairman of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. I am a member of that subcommittee. I can tell you that Senator Johnston and Proctor Jones have made an unbeatable team. They really mastered that bill and have run it in a straightforward and fair manner. Mr. President, we do not acknowledge often enough the staff people who make this institution run day in and day out. In Proctor Jones we have had a superb individual who has dedicated over three decades to this Senate. I, for one, would like to express my appreciation for his hard work and his outstanding record. I wish him well and thank him for a job well done.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Bill Bradley. Since the first day this professional basketball player walked onto the floor of the Senate in 1979, I have been proud to work closely with him on numerous issues. As all Senators know, we spend hours on the Senate floor, toiling away on legislation that affects our home States, other Members' States, and America as a whole. But, I believe Bill Bradley will be most-remembered for his endless struggle to rewrite our tax code in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, his unwavering dedication to reform our campaign finance system, and his tireless efforts to protect the health and welfare of American men, women, and children. I remember well when, in June of 1986, the Senate overwhelmingly supported the Tax Relief Act by a vote of 97-3. Although this legislation was guided carefully through the Congress by Senator Bob Packwood, I would like to take the time today to give credit where credit is due. Without the dedication of the Senator from New Jersey, this bill would have died a thousand deaths on its journey from the House Ways and Means Committee to President Reagan's desk. After we passed this monumental legislation, Senator Bradley said, ``Each senator was willing to sacrifice something that was important to his or her State to do what was in the best interest of the country.'' Thank goodness for Senator Bradley's foresight and coalition building. Without him, many of those gaping tax loopholes we closed would still exist and millions of low-income Americans would have fallen well-below the poverty line. I also would like to commend Bill Bradley for joining me in our fight to reform the campaign finance system through a constitutional amendment. I will miss his assistance behind-the-scenes and on the Senate floor and am hopeful that he will continue to work toward a fair and equitable system for all political candidates when he leaves this distinguished body. Mr. President, I cannot leave the floor without mentioning Senator Bradley's commitment to the health and well-being of American men, women, and children. During the 104th Congress, he fought against cuts to the Food Stamp Program, the WIC Program, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Indeed, he joined me and 33 other Senators in 1995 to protect the Social Security Trust Fund by voting against the balanced budget amendment. That vote took courage, Mr. President, and I commend him for it. In closing, I would like to address the good Senator's work on legislation which we recently passed here in the Senate and which the President has signed into law. Known around Senator Bradley's office as the ``Baby Bill,'' the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1995 will ease the worry of many families experiencing the miracle of childbirth. Thanks to Bill Bradley, hospitals will be required to protect the health of new mothers and their infants for a minimum of 48 hours following a vaginal birth and a 96-hour stay after Caesarean births. I was pleased to co-sponsor this bill and am thrilled that Senator Bradley can leave the Senate following such a grand accomplishment. Mr. President, to say that Bill Bradley will be missed in the Senate is an understatement. Although he is retiring as a U.S. Senator, I do not believe we have heard the last of Bill Bradley in the political arena. I wish him, his wife, Ernestine, and their daughter, Theresa Anne, all the best for the future and a safe journey home to Montclair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I'll come right to the point, it is not a question of one company succeeds. It is the question of one Congress can succeed. Congress made the error, not Federal Express. Federal Express had nothing to do with the dropping of the language when we passed the ICC termination bill last December. We made that mistake. We are on trial. And this distortion: coming in here and flyblowing a wonderful company-- ``antiworker,'' ``a Republican attack,'' ``slash Medicare,'' ``slash education''--none of that has anything to do with it. Let us assume that Federal Express was antiworker. That would have nothing to do with this particular issue. What we did here with my amendment--and incidentally, ``Republican,'' I have been a Democrat since 1948. I think you were just learning to drive at that time. So you can't define who is a Democrat, we will see how the Democrats vote. At that particular time we came in here and we said, ``Wait a minute. When we left, we had a hearing. Been having a hearing quite regularly all over.'' Who is to be heard? Not the merits of workers' rights, the merits of the truth. Find somebody, some Senator, some Congressman. I have challenged him now for 3 days during this filibuster, find me anybody who says otherwise than that it was an honest mistake. It is our duty to try to correct it. Every time we try, we go down the list, filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. Yes, you have the political power. You have held the whole Congress up for 3 days. Every time we try to get it anywhere, you are going to filibuster, filibuster, filibuster, trying to take advantage of an honest mistake. We have heard from all the Congressmen, Republican and Democrat, all the Senators, Republican and Democrat, and we all agree that it was a mistake. You cannot find anybody who says it was not a mistake. To come in here trying to correct an honest mistake, and they flyblow a company with antiworker/Medicare/Medicaid and all that extraneous garbage--they know no shame. We are not going to filibuster. We are ready to vote. We are ready to vote and try to get a political division here today on what this Senator has been trying to clean up. We tried to get the other side to look at the intent. I am looking at the conference report by Mr. Shuster, the ICC Termination Act, last December 15. ``The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act.'' Now, that is exactly what was intended. That is the law. The Railway Labor Act is just exactly what truck drivers and pilots and Federal Express have been under since 1973 when they started business. I felt like Archimedes, who said, ``Eureka, I found it'' when the Senator from Massachusetts cited 4-RC-17698. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record excerpts of the final Board decision.

Mr. HOLLINGS. This particular decision on page 2 covers every kind of driver you can think of--shuttle drivers, tractor-trailer drivers, dispatchers, courier nondrivers, courier drivers, and right on down, and I want to read to you in this limited time the final decision: ``The Board is of the opinion that Federal Express Corporation and all of its employees sought by the UAW's petition are subject to the Railway Labor Act.'' Signed, Stephen E. Crable, the chief of staff, and as a unanimous decision by the other members. That was filed on November 22, 1995, almost a year ago. This is the initiative to try to change it. The opponents are the ones trying to pull the rug out from under that decision because it was at the NLRB-- they know and we all know in 50 years and 100 decisions the NLRB has never reversed a decision that was unanimous by the National Mediation Board. To talk about litigation, for 5 years they had wonderful lawyers. The employees were there with all kinds of hearings and everything else, but they act like what we are trying to do is change the rules in the middle of the game. We are trying to correct a mistake. Mr. President, there is no question in my mind this is an outstanding company. I have ``The 100 Best Companies,'' and I could read it. But, simply stated, the Senator from Illinois is totally out of order with respect to this issue of the way to govern; one people, one Congress. We are the ones who made the mistake, not Federal Express. This is the way to try to correct it. We know we faced a filibuster at every particular turn you could possibly think of. We know this is partisan onslaught. We know this nonsense about working people and working families and slashing education. Under the Railway Labor Act, you have every right and interest to organize, and in fact 65 percent of the workers under the Railway Labor Act are organized. Under the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Act, only 11 percent are organized. So they are wrong when they act like we are trying to change the rules. We are trying to get it back to exactly where the parties were. We are here now because they have the legal power to delay us for 3 days, intimidate and terrorize. I thank the distinguished Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise at this time to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Alan Simpson, who is retiring after serving for 18 years in this body. None of us should have been surprised by Al's entrance into politics. After all, he learned firsthand about the life of a public servant from his father, Milward, who served the people of Wyoming as Governor from 1954 to 1958 and as a U.S. Senator from 1962 to 1966. After graduating from college, Al Simpson began serving his country as a 2d lieutenant in the U.S. Army where he was a member of the 5th Infantry Division and the 2d Armored Division during the Army Occupation in Germany. In 1956, he returned home, went to law school, and joined his father's law firm in Cody, WY. In 1964, he was elected to the State legislature where he represented his home county for 13 years. Mr. President, regardless of whether one thinks that it was destiny or industry that brought Al Simpson to Washington, his 18 years of service have left an indelible legislative mark. Since he became chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Immigration Subcommittee, the Senator from Wyoming has worked assiduously in developing tough laws to crack down on illegal immigration and commonsense policies to govern legal immigration. Indeed, it is a fitting testament to his efforts that one of the last measures passed in the 104th Congress was an immigration reform bill that he authored. But immigration is just one of the many contentious issues that Alan has been willing to take on. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, he recognized the demographic strains that Social Security and Medicare will face in the coming decades and was one of the first Senators to bring serious attention to this issue. Mr. President, Al Simpson and I have agreed on many issues and disagreed on many others, but as one trial lawyer to another, I have always had a profound respect for his directness, his tenacity, his candor, and most of all, his ability to tell a good joke. While we shall all miss his good humor and good counsel, we wish both him and his wife, Ann, all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the senior Senator from Colorado, Senator Hank Brown, for his 16 years of service in Congress. He has worked for the citizens of Colorado as a Member of the House of Representatives, and was elected president of the 97th Congress Republican freshman class. He also has served his State for one term as a U.S. Senator. Everyone was surprised when Senator Brown was the first Republican to announce in late December 1994 that he would not seek reelection in 1996. At that time, Senator Brown said he had tired of his life inside the beltway and had always thought of his time in Washington as a ``period of temporary service.'' As a result, at the end of this Congress, Hank Brown will leave the Senate and return to Colorado with his wife, Nan, and their family. During the last 6 years, I have seen Senator Brown work diligently on the budget, support environmental and agriculture issues affecting his State of Colorado, and deal with foreign policy matters that affect our Nation as a whole. Hank Brown and I have worked side-by-side on the Budget Committee and, while we did not see eye-to-eye all the time, his dedication to Republican spending priorities was tireless and unsurpassed. I know that members of his party will miss his ideas and input when we begin the arduous budget process next year. Senator Brown has also work for the people of Colorado on environmental and agriculture issues. He introduced legislation to protect the Cache La Poudre River flood plain and worked diligently to establish national trails along Colorado's western slope. He also came down to the Senate floor to fight for the rights of Colorado ranchers when we debated the controversial topic of grazing fees. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Hank Brown has supported military aid and training to Eastern European countries. And, I am pleased to say, after studying the ins and outs of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, Senator Brown joined me and several other Senators by voting against that abomination of a trade agreement. Even today, I regret that the Senate in the 103d Congress saw fit to pass that treaty and that the President supported its passage. But, I'll save that talk for another time. The long and short of it, Mr. President, is that Hank Brown will be missed in the Halls of the Capitol. I bid the good Senator, his wife Nan, and their three children farewell as they leave Washington, DC, and wish Hank many happy years of retirement. May it hold new challenges and exciting opportunities.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Senator Paul Simon, who is leaving the Halls of Congress after 22 years of distinguished service in both the House and the Senate. Simply put, Paul Simon epitomizes what we think of when we use the term public servant. Since 1954, he has served the people of Illinois as a State Representative, as a State Senator, as Lieutenant Governor, as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and as a United States Senator. At every level of government, Paul has proven to be a model of thoughtfulness and integrity. As a fellow member of the Senate Budget Committee, Paul Simon stands out, not because of his trademark bow tie, but because of his dogged desire to eliminate our crushing debt burden and his willingness to take the tough medicine necessary to accomplish that goal. Moreover, Paul has keenly understood our obligation to repay not only the public debt but also the debt owed to Social Security and other government trust funds. In addition to his efforts to get our Nation's finances in order, Paul Simon has been a tireless advocate for the need to expand educational opportunities for all Americans. Specifically, he has been a leader in ensuring that those with disabilities receive public education, in combating illiteracy through passage of the National Literacy Act, and more recently, in expanding access to higher education by championing the direct college loan program. While all of us in this body will sorely miss his leadership and cordiality, our loss is Southern Illinois University's gain where Paul will head up the Simon Public Policy Institute. We wish both him and his wife Jeanne the very best in all their future endeavors.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again my distinguished friend from Massachusetts has misquoted the matter of truck drivers' rights. We have been saying this for 3 days. They say a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, but all I can do is put in the entire decision. It is that all of the truck drivers--and they are not under the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Act. They are under the Railway Labor Act and have been, and decision after decision after decision we put in, all the decisions found them under the Labor Railway Act; none of the decisions have found them under the NLRA. That is how they organized. Mr. President, 90 percent of their carrier is by air; 90 percent of UPS is on the surface, on the ground. That is the difference. We even had the lawyer of the Teamsters Union in a hearing here earlier this year use the expression, the difference between these companies is night and day, but here you get a political jambalaya to fit into this silly filibuster. How can you get the truth out of everybody? Isn't their any pride and conscience in this body? A mistake was made. Everybody knows it was a mistake. We are trying to correct the mistake. We are not changing the rights of any parties whatever. But they are trying to make a Federal case out of workers' rights, slashing opportunities, and everything else that they have put on the billboards. I would be ashamed to put that thing up behind me. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise in tribute to one of the great nonpartisan, effective Senators of this body, Nancy Landon Kassebaum. Senator Kassebaum's 18 years in the Senate have been marked by shifts back and forth in control of the Senate. She was elected into the minority, came into the majority within 2 years, returned to the minority in her second term, and recently returned to the majority. She has been the Senator we needed in these times. Whichever direction the winds of partisanship blew, she was the safe haven for compromise and progress in the public interest. That is why her endorsement is courted so assiduously on both sides. Mr. President, I emphasize that the winds have blown back and forth, but Senator Kassebaum has fixed on the great issues that concern all Americans and sought the solutions we needed. I remember when we saw skyrocketing deficits in this body that we worked together to make a freeze work. I had a ``Fritz Freeze'' and she had a ``K. G. B.'' freeze--Kassebaum, Grassley, Biden, and Baucus. Finally, we worked together in 1987 on a joint, compromise freeze. She has also tackled limiting campaign spending from a Constitutional point of view. We all know the importance of finding a way to limit the influence of money in politics, and she has not been reluctant to advance a thoughtful position on that. And she has been a leader on making historic progress in South Africa. She has been the Senate's voice on Africa, and we appreciate that. Furthermore, she has been deeply involved in the issue of health research, particularly on Orphan Drugs. Basic health research is America's particular pride and strength, and she made sure that those with rare diseases are included in our hopeful enterprise. That is a contribution that will change the lives of families through the generations, who otherwise would have suffered without any hope whatsoever. Mr. President, these are all issues that are fundamentally important and nonpartisan. They reflect her judgment and her leadership, and we are privileged to have worked with her on them. Finally, Mr. President, I must brag on my home city of Charleston. Senator Kassebaum has recognized its beauty through her frequent visits, and, coincidentally, it is home to her son, his wife, and their children. I hope we will see more of her there after this Congress is over, but, certainly, she has been a real leader that we will miss in this Senate.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with respect to this particular point of order, it would not set any precedent relative to anything dealing with the merits of the matter. It is dealing, once again, basically with a fundamental mistake made in the drafting of a measure that was caught some 2 months later, never discussed, never voted on and, of course, there were no hearings, or what have you. So what we have done is taken this opportunity on a very germane matter, Federal Express is the sixth largest airline in the country, and brought in this particular correction. It has nothing to do with the merits of anything and no precedent will be set when we overrule this Chair. Mr. President, I can tell you categorically, if this kind of a point of order was made on Monday, we would have had to close down the Government. You can go down and list the various things--$249.8 million emergency appropriations for counterterrorism that was not in the bill or in the conference. The measure under discussion here was at least in the conference. The FBI with $60 million, the Prevention Council, various appropriations for the EDA, the SBA, I could go down the list. I am confident I can get support now when I remind the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts--the Massachusetts Biotechnology Research Institute, I am constantly getting a little card from my distinguished friend, and I love to do it. He said, you have to take care of me up there in Boston, and I said, I am glad to do it. It was not in either the House or the Senate, but I think we can get it in. We do that. I hope he can vote with me on this particular overriding of the Chair's ruling.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the Senate Commerce Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee have worked hard to put together the Federal Aviation Authorization bill. The conference report on H.R. 3539 represents a fair compromise on many issues. My colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Ford, have spent a lot of time and effort to develop the legislation. It is a complex bill that seeks to provide a future foundation for the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], for air service to small communities, and for our Nation's airports. The bill addresses the fundamental needs to the national air travel system. Passengers must be sure that safety is the FAA's primary mission, that security measures are improved, that we have enough safety inspectors with the tools to do their job, and that our Nation's airports have the money to remain safe. This bill does that. The bill also establishes a series of task forces to determine the best way to fund the agency. Key provisions in the bill will make the FAA a more autonomous agency--with the ability to make its own decisions concerning regulations, personnel, and procurement. The bill changes the funding formulas for the Airport Improvement Program, providing more money for those airports most in need of Federal help. The beneficiaries, mainly smaller airports, will receive higher entitlements. In South Carolina, some airport projects are underway and need funding to continue. Other worthy projects in my State cannot begin without money from the Airport Improvement Program. Security, a critical issue, also is addressed. The bill for example, requires that security screening companies be certified by the FAA. The bill will facilitate the installation of explosive detection equipment. There is one section in the bill on privatization that the conferees spent a good deal of time discussing. The provision continues to trouble me. Under the legislation, an airport can be privatized and still receive a Federal grant. If the private sector believes it can suddenly revitalize airports with claims of new money, why does the Federal Government have to provide corporate welfare? The Federal Government has a clear interest in our Nation's airports. We have helped design them, have provided all sorts of equipment to make them safe, and have funded them. The U.S. Government and U.S. taxpayers have an investment in them. The provision that allows airport privatization permits airports to be turned over to a private company. The Federal Government does not get a dime back, while a private company can make a profit partly from the Federal investment. This is wrong. H.R. 3539 incorporates much of the text of S. 1994, the FAA reform bill, reported by the Commerce Committee last June. Those provisions call for an independent review of the precise needs of the FAA, followed by the submission of a funding proposal to finance the agency. We know that the Federal budget will continue to be cut, but some programs must be funded--like the FAA. The financing reform sought by the bill will help us figure out a better way to provide needed funding--whether it is by placing it off budget, by fees, or by taxes. The goal is to make sure money collected from passengers on air carriers goes to the FAA. Aviation Security Aviation security is an extremely complex issue. It involves technology, personnel, intelligence information, national security, and a recognition that there are people willing to commit heinous crimes aimed at our Government and our citizens. The bill provides for a safety commission. I want to make clear that the commission is intended to complete the work of the Vice President's task force. Investigators in New York have not yet identified the cause of the crash of TWA flight 800, and numerous options are being considered. We have to let the investigators complete their mission. The National Transportation Safety Board, the Navy, the FBI, and State and local personnel are working hard to determine the cause of the accident. We do know this, however--the public deserves the best technology operated by the best trained individuals, to reduce the risks of a terrorist attack. Another thing is clear--security is going to be costly. The FAA has estimated that it will cost as much as $2.2 billion to install up to 1,800 machines at 75 airports. Today, there are approximately 14,000- 18,000 screeners, paid an average of $10,000 to $15,000 per year. These screeners are one line of defense, but a critical one in the fight against terrorism. They need training, and they need to be paid in accordance with their responsibilities. The present turnover rate among these employees is extremely high. Unless we change the way we provide security, we cannot upgrade it. All the technology in the world still requires a person to watch a screen, listen to alarms, and be able to recognize materials that should not go on board an aircraft. No matter what we do, safety comes first. Nothing should go onto an aircraft without being screened. Cargo, company material, and baggage all should be subject to inspection. Security changes may require a fundamental alteration in the way air carriers provide services. Longer lines can be expected. Unfortunately, it is a price we must pay to deal with people in this world willing to stop at nothing. Mr. President, let me thank our Commerce Committee Democratic staff-- Sam Whitehorn, Clyde Hart, Jim Drewry, Kevin Curtin, Becky K. and Sylvia Cikins for all their hard work in the resolution of these issues. I urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, Senator Bill Cohen is one of our colleagues who often comes to mind when considering the mainstream in this body. The presence of these individuals who defy labeling is indeed fortunate in the effort to achieve the compromise so essential in government. I have noted over the years that observers attempting to define these so called liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, and ``moderates'', often were describing colleagues like Bill Cohen who simply considered the issue at hand on the merits and decided, in his judgement, in the interest of the greater good. Party Line and dogma have never been decisive factors in his decisions, and as a result he was regularly numbered among those who brought about the compromise necessary for progress. First elected to the House in 1972, Bill Cohen immediately demonstrated his fortitude and independent thinking in dealing with perhaps the most traumatic issue to face the Congress in this century. As a member of the impeachment committee charged with the responsibility of considering the actions of the Nixon Administration, he spoke eloquently of the imperatives of accountability and responsibility in the conduct of public officials. True to the principles evidenced in that courageous beginning, he remains today a spokesman for and example of civility in government and public service. Bill came to the Senate in 1978 where he quickly established himself as a dedicated and studious member, mastering the intricacies of a diverse set of issues facing our Nation. He was a spokesman for military preparedness long before others in more recent times adopted the popular mantra of ``military readiness''. His service on the Armed Services Committee has clearly established Bill Cohen not only as a guardian of military preparedness but also as a protector of those who serve in the ranks of our Armed Forces. His exemplary service on the Intelligence Committee was of invaluable benefit to this Nation on issues of grave importance to our National Security. His evenhandedness in his service on the Judiciary Committee and his sensitivity and compassion demonstrated while on the Committee on Aging again stand as testimony to the quality of his service to the people of Maine and this Nation. Senator Bill Cohen departs our ranks with the respect and admiration of all of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We wish him and Janet the very best in the future.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the great men of the Senate. He has served his State of Arkansas with honor as a State Representative, Governor, Member of Congress and finally as a U.S. Senator. Despite this wonderful career, he has not lost touch with the ``common man.'' I know all my colleagues agree, David Pryor is truly one of the most well-liked members of this body. Whether defending the Special Committee on Aging and the Nation's elderly or as the primary sponsor of the Tax Payer Bill of Rights, you can count on the Senator from Arkansas tirelessly and doggedly fighting to do what he believes is right. However, no matter how heated the battle, Senator Pryor always maintains his cool and always treats his fellow Senators with dignity and respect. Senator Pryor has accomplished much in his career, but he will always be remembered as the No. 1 advocate for the Nation's elderly. Having served as chairman and ranking member of the Special Committee on Aging, he has led the way in his dedication to protecting and enhancing the lives of our senior citizens. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, David Pryor has worked to protect the American farmer, and, as the primary sponsor of the Tax Payer Bill of Rights, he almost singlehandedly focused attention on IRS abuses of the American taxpayer. There is no doubt the Senate will miss David and his charming wife, Barbara. Barbara has worked diligently to bring outstanding Arkansas art to Washington so all visitors to David's office can enjoy it. The Senate will miss their personal touch and we wish them well.