April 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5631

NO PLACE FOR HATE

The situation is serious. But if we

face up to it, we can solve it before it

gets worse.

The ringleaders of the hate groups

are few in number. Garfield County Attorney Nick Murnion has studied them

closely. He believes the Freemen and

militia have no more than 25 to 30 core

members around the State.

The hard-core leaders, in many cases,

are common criminals. They refuse to

pay their taxes and will not live by the

laws. Those who have broken the laws

should be arrested, tried and put in

jail. And we can do it if we give law enforcement the support it requires.

But dealing with the rank and file is

a responsibility of the entire community. Most militia members are not

Nazis or potential terrorists—merely

loud, deluded people who are an embarrassment but not a threat. And all of

us need to show them that hate has no

place under Montana’s big sky, and no

place in America.

Hate groups, threats of violence and

racism must be met in the open. They

grow and spread in darkness and silence but they vanish in the sunlight.

The entire American family must show

them that they are not welcome.

THE BILLINGS MENORAH MOVEMENT

And that will work. I know, because

I have seen it work. When the vast majority of ordinary, decent people stand

together, the small number of haters

and extremists are always defeated.

In November 1993, a group of

skinheads came to a Jewish house in

Billings, MT, and threw a bottle

through the glass door. A few days

later they put a brick through the window of another Jewish house, with a 5-

year-old boy in the room. Then they

smashed the windows of Catholic High

School, which had a ‘‘Happy Hanukah’’

sign on its marquee.

Events like these can isolate their

victims. They can silence people of

good will and open broader campaigns

of hate and violence. But that did not

happen. Instead, Billings rallied with

the Jewish community.

The Billings Gazette printed up thousands of paper menorahs. People all

over town pasted them in their windows as a sign of solidarity. Billings

held the largest Martin Luther King

Day march ever in our State. And the

skinheads left town.

As good people again speak out, that

will happen with the militias and

Freemen too. They must know they are

not welcome in our churches, our grocery stores, our towns. We must stand

with law enforcement as they track

down clinic bombers and arrest radical

tax protesters. And when the American

family stands together against the

hate groups, as Billings stood against

the skinheads, they will vanish.

Mr. President, nothing will undo the

pain in Oklahoma City. But the suffering of the bombing victims and their

families need not be in vain.

Let us reflect on this horrible event.

Let us remember the sacrifice our fathers made across the seas 50 years

ago.

And let us rededicate ourselves to

ending hate here at home in America.

THE ENVIRONMENT OF

EXTREMISM

fMr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on

the matter of the extremism which the

distinguished Senator from Montana so

thoughtfully addressed, I want to just

address the environment; not necessarily the extremists, not the hate

groups—I want to address our conduct,

namely the public servants.

We read in the morning’s paper, for

example, where David Broder uses that

description of this Government here in

Washington, the greatest gift to free

people the world around, a representative form of government that works so

well—he uses the words of our distinguished Speaker, ‘‘the corrupt liberal

welfare state.’’

You know Mr. GINGRICH is not going

to blow up any buildings and neither is

Senator HOLLINGS. But what has come

from my experience is a reaction

against this particular environment,

because it is created by pollster politics.

I ran for 20 years without ever seeing

a political poll. You addressed the issues as concern the citizenry, going

down the Main Street, out into the

farms, the rural areas, the small towns,

as well as the civic club meetings in

the cities. You had a feel for what is

going on. But that is not allowed today

in the pollster world. What you do is

you take a poll, find out what they call

the six or seven hot button issues, and

take the popular side of those particular issues and blame everybody else.

Specifically, if you want to run for

office up here in Washington, it has

gotten to an environment of running

against the Government. This is sheer

nonsense, but this is the fact. I think

we are elected to make this Government work. The approach of the environment, under the contract and otherwise, is to get rid of the Government,

dismantle it. It is not needed. Cut the

money so they cannot do the job or

whatever else it is. But as long as you

can run against the Government, with

the cry, ‘‘The Government is not the

solution, the Government is the problem,’’ that is the problem I wish to address here. Because all the attention

and editorials will now go with respect

to the hate groups.

Unfortunately, they have prospered

over the past 15 years. I was inaugurated as Governor of South Carolina in

1959. After I took the oath of office, I

ran back up the steps to get on different clothes for the parade. I looked

on my desk and I found a green envelope, gold embossed, from the Ku Klux

Klan, Grand Klavern of America, giving me a lifetime membership. Well, I

was lawyer enough. I said, ‘‘We are

going to return that with a return receipt requested.’’ But I asked for the

head of my law enforcement division,

Mr. Pete Strom, I said, ‘‘Have him here

at the end of the parade. I want to see

about this.’’

At the end of the parade, I asked

Chief Strom. I said, ‘‘We have the Klan

in South Carolina?’’ I was down in

Charleston, and we did not have that

activity in the city of Charleston, not

that we were any better than any part

of the State.

But he says, ‘‘Yes. We got 16,721

members.’’

I said, ‘‘You keep a count?’’

He said, ‘‘Yes. We keep a count of

them but none of the Governors wanted

to do anything.’’

I said, ‘‘Do anything?’’

He said, ‘‘Yes. Get rid of the crowd.’’

I said, ‘‘Well, I agree with you. We

ought to get rid of them. What do you

need?’’

He said, ‘‘I need your cooperation. If

you can get me a little money for informant fees, if you can help me infiltrate this group, we will get rid of

them.’’

And at the end of my 4-year term we

integrated now Clemson University—

then Clemson College—without incident, because we were able to bring it

down from 16,721 to less than probably

200.

In fact, they told me. I did not know

about any meetings. But some of my

informants were called in the meetings

and informing and everything else, and

we dispelled the Klan from South Carolina. But unfortunately, Mr. President,

that now has grown back.

When they talk, and write in erudite

fashion in the morning news, do not

worry about this violence and racism,

that we had it back in the 1920’s. Do

not give me the 1920’s. Let us go back

just 30 years ago or 40 years ago, from

1954 with the Brown against the Board

of Education decision and come on up

40 years to 1994. I can tell you categorically we have more racism today in my

home State than we had at that particular time.

This environment really bothers me

in the context of what I experienced

back home just this past Easter break.

We had an annual meeting of our State

Chamber of Commerce. To that meeting I was invited, of course, the two

Senators, and the six Congressmen.

Most of us, of course, were in attendance and we answered the questions.

One of our distinguished Congressman

had gotten on to the matter of the abolition of, getting rid of, closing down

the departments of Government. I was

just sort of taken aghast. But I

thought I would hit them right head

on.

When my turn came, I said, ‘‘Wait a

minute. You folks are talking now of

abolishing the Department of Commerce?’’ Here I am meeting with the

State Chamber of Commerce, and I

could see the faces light up, and they

started almost clapping saying, yes. I

said, ‘‘The Department of Commerce,

Education?’’ We had former Governor,
S5632 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 25, 1995

very popular and outstanding Governor, Dick Riley, who is the Secretary

of Education up here now. They said,

yes, yes. They got even louder. I said,

‘‘Energy, and HUD?’’ Yes. They were

almost standing up cheering. They

were almost standing up cheering.

Let us do not talk of the extreme.

That is easy to address. Let us talk of

the responsibility of middle America.

Everybody wants to buy the vote

around here of middle America. We are

it. We are middle America and we are

developing that attitude of dismantling

it and getting rid of the very thing we

are supposed to build and represent to

respond to. We certainly are not responding by paying for any bills.

I fought that, now years on end, trying to get fiscal responsibility. But I

want to emphasize that my feeling is

not just on account of the disaster in

Oklahoma, which I think is reflective.

When we set up the environment of

that kind, then extremism can prosper.

I saw it in 1963 under our hero John

Fitzgerald Kennedy. I will never forget

at that particular time the anti-Kennedy environment that persisted. I

have never thought anyone was more

eloquent, more intelligent, more dynamic than John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

And he did attract in a sense the best

and the brightest to our Government

at $1 a year and we had things moving.

But an environment had developed

somewhat similar to this environment

today that I feel when I go to these

meetings and see these reactions—

President Kennedy was about as popular as an itch. I can tell you here and

now when the news came over that he

had been assassinated, public schoolchildren in my backyard stood and

clapped.

We are responsible—not the extreme

groups—we in Government are responsible for these responses, with this kind

of environment, and this kind of feel

amongst the people. Yes. The talk

show hosts. Good heavens above. They

cannot plead not guilty now. They are

as guilty as get out. They have talked

of arms and shooting. And, yes, this

morning as they talk now they refer to

ourselves up here as the corrupt liberal

welfare state. They have got all the

buzzwords. The Republican Party gives

instructions on using the proper

buzzwords. The Senator from North

Dakota put that in the Congressional

RECORD. We know those particular

buzzwords, and they will tell you to use

those buzzwords because that fires up

the people and engenders support for

your particular position. That is what

has been going on, to my dismay.

I felt after the election in November

that rather than a Contract With

America, that what we needed was a

challenge. Rather than reinventing

Government, we needed to restart it.

After all, we had 12 years of ReaganBush, and Heaven knows they had cut

enough spending, except in the field, of

course, of defense. We had cut, cut,

cut—this minute with even further

cuts, 50 percent of WIC, 50 percent of

Head Start, 50 percent of title I for the

disadvantaged. All of those have been

not embellished and fleshed out to

their fulfillment whereby we save

money—$3 for every $1 invested in WIC,

$4.50 for every $1 invested in Head

Start, $6.50 for every $1 invested in

title I for the disadvantaged. Yes,

health research has been cut. We saved

$13.50 for every $1 we invest there.

Some were talking about the flu. I

just was reading David McCullough’s

book on Truman, and after World War

I; 1918, 1919. We had 500,000 deaths from

a flu epidemic, more than was killed in

World War I. We had 25,000 GI’s in camp

that never got to war that died as a result of the flu. With problematic research, we have saved those lives, and

the report now is we have less than

5,000 here in the year 1994, or 1995, the

most recent figures.

So we save and we ought to understand by investing in education, investing in these various programs, we actually are saving money. But the drumbeat to election has gotten so that

there is a total disrespect for anybody

that serves in public office almost

today, and particularly at the Washington level.

I thought with the problems that we

had what needed to be done is a challenge for America in the context of a

Marshall plan on the one hand, and a

competitive trade policy on the other

hand. Specifically, as we started the

year, we have 39.9 million in poverty in

the United States of America, and that

has not diminished. We have over 10

million homeless on the sidewalks tonight when you are on the way home.

We have 12 million children going hungry. We have 39 million without health

care. Those who have a full-time job

are making 20 percent less than what

they were making 20 years ago. According to the census figures last year, that

is the groups from 17 to 24—73 percent

of that age group cannot find a job or

they cannot find a job out of poverty.

And with our lack of a trade policy

whereby 10 percent of manufactured

goods, back in 1970, 25 years ago, only

10 percent of manufactured goods

consumed in your and my United

States represented imports; now over

50 percent. If we had gone back in the

last few minutes or as of today back to

the 10 percent, that is 10 million manufacturing jobs. We are going out of

business. We are headed the way of

England. As they told the Brits some

years back, ‘‘Don’t worry; instead of a

nation of brawn, we are going to be a

nation of brains, and instead of producing products, we are going to provide

services and have a service economy.

Instead of creating wealth, we are

going to handle it and be a financing

center.’’ And England has gone to hell

in an economic handbasket.

When you lose your economic power,

Mr. President, you lose your power in

foreign relations. As of today, we are

not the biggest contributor to foreign

aid. Japan is the biggest contributor.

They are holding the schools on

Fredrich List, the Japanese model,

whereby the wealth of the economy is

measured not by what it can buy but

by what it can produce and the decision is not based on be fair, be fair,

level-the-field nonsense. It is whether

the decision strengthens or weakens

the economy. And this is the competition we have in the Pacific rim, and

even now the emerging nations in Eastern Europe are not adopting the free

trade of Adam Smith and David Ricardo but, rather, following the

Fredrich List model, and that is the

competition we have to wake up to.

So I thought the first order of business now with the fall of the Wall was

that we could start rebuilding this land

and we are immediately going to the

distinguished President George Bush,

who, in his State of the Union, said we

have got more will than wallet. False.

We have got more wallet than will. I

can tell you that. We have the money.

We are spending it $1 billion a day for

interest costs, for nothing. We are

wasting it. If they want to get a Grace

Commission—and I was very sorry to

see my friend passing here, Peter

Grace, who headed up that Commission, just this last week. I served on

that Commission, and he acted with

tremendous distinction for the good of

the Government here in Washington.

But if you want to get waste, fraud

and abuse, the biggest we have—and

nobody wants to talk about it—is the

increase of the debt. And all you need

to do, if you want to find out what the

real deficit is, is see what the debt was

in 1994, what it is going to be in 1995—

we will go backward—and what it was

in, say, 1990 and how much it increased

in 1991, and then in 1991, how it increased in 1992. And you can see, not of

this structural debt or other kind of

debt that they describe, but you can

see we are spending on an average of

$300 billion more than we are taking in.

That is the deficit as I see it.

In January, they estimated $338 billion, but we have had six increases in

the interest rate since that time. So it

is going to be $350-some billion no

doubt—$1 billion a day—and we are

into a downward spiral. You can have

all the freezes, and I favor them. You

can have all the spending cuts, and I

favor them. I absolutely oppose any tax

cut. We do not have the money to cut.

I can tell you that now. But that is

buying the vote, the pollster will tell

you, not only to use the pejorative

terms but to come out for middle

America.

That is what distresses me. The leadership of the Republicans and the leadership of the Democrats are both talking about middle-class bills of rights

and buying that vote and leaving us

who have been in Government and trying to work to get us operating in the

black and get this Government going

again scrambling back to the environment. We can put in a value added tax

along with spending freezes, along with

spending cuts, along with closure of
April 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5633

the loopholes, tax expenditures and

along with a tax increase.

I knew in my heart—and I can see

Howard Baker there, the leader back in

1981, 1982 when we talked about a

freeze. In 1981, Howard turned to me

and he said, ‘‘Now, Fritz, I can’t come

out and endorse it, but we are going to

have to get on top of this. We are going

up to the hundred billion deficit.’’

We never had had that before. We do

not even blink at the $300 and $400 billion deficits that we are having today.

He said, ‘‘You come out with your

freeze, and I will support it in the context of I will say, ‘Well, that is interesting; let’s study it and let’s see if we

can go from there.’’’ And when I did,

the next morning Don Regan, the Secretary of Treasury, tackled us from behind and said, ‘‘No way; we are not

going to do that.’’ And as a result the

rest is history.

Under President Reagan, we got the

$100 billion deficit, the first $200 billion

deficit. Under President Bush, we got

the first $300 billion deficit and the

first $400 billion deficit. Now, yes,

President Clinton came to town and

cut $500 billion in spending. He taxed

Social Security. He taxed cigarettes.

He taxed liquor. He taxed gasoline. He

let go some 100,000 Federal employees,

and he was on the right track until November when the contract now is the

attention, almost like spectator sport

up here. And so it is Annie get your

gun; anything you can do, I can do better.

We are not really talking in terms of

substance. We are only talking in

terms of symbols. You can adopt the

Contract With America in the next 10

minutes and not a single bill is paid

and not a single job is created. So if we

could put in the Marshall Plan and

start investing in people—we are talking about putting people first—if we

can go back to the theme upon which

the distinguished President was elected

and then turn to a competitive trade

policy, we can start rebuilding our

economy and our strength and thereby

our influence.

Our foreign policy and security as a

nation is like a three-legged stool. You

have the one leg of the values of the

country, and we feed the hungry in Somalia; we build democracy in Haiti. We

have the second leg unquestioned

there, too, that of the military. The

third leg, the economic leg, has been

fractured, intentionally so, over the

past 45 years with the special relationship that we had to support the fight of

the cold war against communism. But

now with the fall of the Wall, it is our

opportunity not to dismantle the Government but to rebuild the Government, not to reinvent the Government

but to rebuild it.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that ‘‘Perspective—Challenge for

the New America,’’ be printed in the

RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

[From the Charlotte Observer, Mar. 12, 1995]

CHALLENGE FOR THE NEW AMERICA

(By Ernest Hollings)

Our economy is broken. Our society is

splitting apart. Our nation is in decline.

Forty million Americans live in poverty; 10

million Americans are homeless; 12 million

children go hungry every day; and more than

39 million of us don’t have health care.

America, land of opportunity, today is a

frightening picture. The cities have become

centers of crime and violence, the schools

have become shooting galleries, the land

drug-infested. The hard-working have no job

security. Those with full time jobs are making 20% less than they did 20 years ago. And

73% of the generation of the future—those

who are 17 to 24 years old—can’t find a job or

can’t find one that will lift them out of poverty. For the first time in our history, today’s younger generation will not live better

than their parents. We’re developing into a

two-tiered society of the haves and havenots.

And what does the Contract with America

promise? Procedure Process. Delay. Adopt

the Contract in the next 10 minutes and no

job would be created, no bill would be paid.

It’s true that the Contract makes a lot of

headlines about issues of concern. But it

makes no headway.

We in Washington act as if we were elected

to cheer rather than to govern. Our duty is

to get out of the grandstand, get down on the

field and score. To score, the United States

needs to launch a Marshall Plan to rebuild

America. But many feel we don’t have the

money. Like George Bush, they contend we

‘‘have more will than wallet.’’ Nonsense. We

have more wallet than will. We just refuse to

pay our bills. As a consequence, our wealth

is wasted on paying the interest costs of a

soaring debt.

Pretending that economic growth and

spending cuts alone could cure the deficit,

David Stockman said, ‘‘We have incessantly

poisoned the political debate with a mindless

stream of anti-tax venom.’’ The result

today? A spending spree of $1 billion a day

that services a debt that grows like topsy.

To put a tourniquet on this hemorrhage, we

must freeze spending, cut spending, close tax

loopholes and enact a 5% value-added tax,

which would put the government on a payas-you-go basis. With this in place, we can

provide a Marshall Plan to rebuild America.

First, we must invest in proven programs

that save money and people, such as the WIC

(Women, Infants and Children) nutrition program: childhood immunizations; Head Start;

education; biomedical research and more.

Next, we should promote savings and investment with revamped Individual Retirement

Accounts and research tax credits for industry. And we should reinstitute revenue-sharing to pay for unfunded mandates and to rebuild the decaying infrastructure—roads,

bridges, schools—of our cities and states.

COMPETITIVE TRADE

At another time of crisis, Abraham Lincoln said we must think anew, act anew and

disenthrall ourselves. If we can think anew,

about spending and taxes to develop an

American Plan for America, we must

disenthrall ourselves from the buzzwords of

this town—‘‘protectionism,’’ ‘‘industrial policy’’ and ‘‘distrust of government.’’

The very fundamental of government is

protection. We have the Defense Department

to protect us from enemies without, and the

FBI to protect us from enemies within. Medicare and Medicaid protect us from ill health.

Social Security protects from the ravages of

old age. We have clean air and clean water

provisions to protect the environment. And

of course, we have a raft of protections

against free market forces—minimum wage,

unemployment security, anti-trust laws, safe

machinery, safe working places, plant closing notices, parental leave—which all added

to the costs of production. All of these protections have sweeping bipartisan support so

we can maintain our high standard of living.

In today’s low-wage, controlled global

competition, the U.S. living standard must

be protected. But after 50 years of operating—and losing—under the free trade model

developed by Adam Smith, the United States

must realize that it needs a competitive

trade policy to win the war of ever-increasing trade deficits. Unlike Smith, who believed the wealth of a nation was measured

by what it could buy, we live in a world

where wealth is measured by what a nation

can produce. Trade policy is not a moral

question of ‘‘being fair,’’ but a question of

whether it strengthens or weakens the economy.

Our government should stop kowtowing to

the multinationals and start protecting our

economy. Instead of having 28 departments

and agencies in government that deal with

trade, we need to orchestrate them into one

entity to guide national trade policy. Similar to the National Security Council, we

need a statutory National Economic Council

to direct trade policy and globalize our industrial policy. We don’t need a bunch of new

laws. We need to enforce the trade and dumping laws that are on the books now.

To augment a competitive trade policy, we

need to embellish the Advanced Technology

Program, regional manufacturing centers

and small business loans for technological

development. We should use market access

to encourage voluntary restraint agreements

for those products important to our national

security. We must change archaic securities

laws to favor long-term investment. And if

forced, we can translate the inspection practices and nontariff barriers of our competitors into English by withholding market access until the United States is permitted

market access.

Ten years ago, 26% of our work force was

engaged in manufacturing. Now, it’s dwindled to 16%. If we lose our manufacturing

power, we’ll cease to be a world power. We

need a competitive trade policy and an

American plan for America to get the country moving.

U.S. CAN-DO

The United States is a can-do country.

Since the beginning, it always has looked to

the people’s government in Washington to

lead the way. And today, as spiraling deficits

and free trade threaten our standard of living, our challenge is to use government to

get us out of this mess. Look how successful

we’ve been:

It was the Washington government that

enacted the land ordinances that opened the

West to pioneers.

The Washington government built the

roads, canals, harbors and the transcontinental railroad that poured our rich resources into factories.

The Washington government produced the

water projects that transformed the Midwest

desert into the breadbasket of the world.

The Washington government brought electricity to rural America.

When free enterprise failed in the Depression, the Washington government lifted us

from despair and rebuilt our economy.

The Washington government saved the

world from fascism.

The Washington government broke the

back of racial discrimination and set us on

the road to equal justice.

The Washington government joined

science, industry and education and put a

man on the moon.
S5634 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE April 25, 1995

We can repeat our past successes. Enough

of this chant to get rid of the government.

As John Adams said, ‘‘The declaration of

hostility by a people to a government made

by themselves, for themselves and conducted

by themselves is an insult.’’

And enough of these information-age

buzzwords of reinvention, reassignment, dismantling and devolution. Now is the time to

quit playing with symbols and go to work on

substance.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me just read

this because this is what we had in

mind and spoke of back right after

they submitted the contract and talked

about in November so reverently, and I

read now because I do not want people

now to think I am joining the comments with respect to extremism. I do

not differ with them. I salute the distinguished Senator from Montana, the

Senator from Minnesota and others,

but I read because we have got to give

the people hope in this environment.

And I read this.

The United States is a can-do country.

Since the beginning, it has always looked to

the people’s government in Washington to

lead the way. And today, as spiraling deficits

and free trade threaten our standard of living, our challenge is to use Government to

get out of this mess. Look how successful we

have been.

It was the Washington government that

enacted the land ordinances that opened the

West to pioneers.

The Washington government built the

roads, canals, harbors and transcontinental

railroad that poured our rich resources into

the factories.

The Washington Government produced the

water projects that transformed the Midwest

desert into the breadbasket of the world.

It was the Washington Government that

brought electricity to rural America. When

free enterprise failed in the Depression, the

Washington Government lifted us from despair and rebuilt our economy. The Washington Government saved the world from fascism. The Washington Government broke the

back of racial discrimination and set us on

the road to equal justice. And it was the

Washington Government that joined science,

industry and education and put a man on the

Moon.

We can repeat our past successes. Enough

of this chant to get rid of the Government.

As John Adams said, ‘‘The declaration of

hostility by a people to a Government made

by themselves for themselves and conducted

by themselves is an insult.’’

I yield the floor.

LOUD AND ANGRY VOICES

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise

this afternoon with a question: Where

are the loud and angry voices?

President Clinton traveled to my

home State of Minnesota yesterday to

speak out against what he called the

‘‘loud and angry voices * * * the purveyors of hatred and division’’ that he

claims have fostered a climate of profound distrust in government.

Mr. President, I will concede that

there is indeed deep discontent in the

heartland, some of it focused on the

Federal Government; discontent was

reflected at the ballot box in November.

People are fed up with a government

they believe has grown too big, too

overpowering, too unresponsive. They

heard the conservative message of less

government and it hit home. Just as

Americans have done time and time

again throughout the history of this

Nation, they started a revolution of

ideas by voting for a change.

Now, that is what courageous Americans do—they vote. Courageous Americans do not plant bombs. Courageous

Americans do not murder their neighbors and their neighbors’ children.

Cowards do.

I have been receiving telephone calls

from angry constituents, furious that—

simply because they consider themselves opponents of bigger government

or higher taxes—that their President

would seek to somehow tie them to the

actions of the desperate few who committed unspeakable violence in Oklahoma City. Why stop there? Why not

blame fertilizer producers and the folks

who sell it? Why not blame the employees who rented out the truck that carried the bomb? Or the Federal Government itself?

I will tell Americans why we cannot—and must not—play the blaming

game: because the only individuals responsible for this tragedy are the very

cowards who built the bomb, parked in

front of that building, and in that horrible explosion, took innocent American lives.

For some things that happen, there is

no reason, and out of anger we tend to

blame. We must not blame each other.

Those who did this—they alone are

responsible, and they should be

brought forth in the American tradition of justice and held accountable for

their actions.

We must remember the pain of Oklahoma City, but this is not a time to

score political points or to somehow

use the victims of this tragedy as the

pawns of some crazy chess match. This

is a time for healing, for sticking together. We should be drawing ourselves

closer to our fellow Americans—not

pushing each other apart.

Mr. President, democracy can be a

hazardous endeavor. There are deep

risks—but equally deep riches to be

gained—every time a civilization is entrusted with the freedom to govern itself. A government ‘‘of the people, by

the people, and for the people’’ can

never be sealed off from the world.

We cannot pass enough laws to prevent what happened in Oklahoma City.

But with the promise of punishment

that is swift and severe, we make a

bold statement that the vicious actions

of a few will not be tolerated within a

democracy.

If President Clinton had listened

carefully during his visit to Minnesota,

he would have heard the same loud and

angry voices that I hear echoing across

this country. The loud and angry

voices I hear are not political or ideological. They are the voices of real people—in Oklahoma, in Minnesota, and

across the country—who have witnessed this awful tragedy and are demanding justice.

We would not serve them well by politicizing tragedy. Instead, we must

punish those who committed this act,

stand by those who were injured in the

blast, and keep forever in our memories respect for those who lost their

lives on April 19, 1995.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my heart

goes out for the families and friends of

those brutally murdered by the senseless bombing in Oklahoma City last

week. It was a cowardly act, perpetrated against fathers and mothers,

children, aunts and uncles, brothers

and sisters, friends and fellow Americans. While our prayers go to the survivors, the community and the brave

soles doing the gruesome work of recovery, I am sure each of us, in our

own way have uttered, why and ‘‘there

but by the grace of God go I.’’

There is not justification for such an

act of barbarism; no circumstances

under which our society can tolerate

such actions. Those who would wantonly take the lives of innocent citizens, also destroy the fabric of our freedom. They must be caught. If found

guilty, they must be dealt the harshest

penalty the law will allow.

As a nation, we must draw a clear

line between what is acceptable disagreement with Government and what

is just plain lawless brutality. But in

our sorrow and anger, we must be

mindful to draw that line carefully.

Our Constitution dictates the middle

ground between measured justice and

reckless retribution. It is a time tested

outline for what is too much Government and what is too little. It is the

very framework of our liberty. Even so,

there are plenty of instances in the history of our Nation where its umbrella

of protection was bent by public outrage or fear and the rights of individuals or groups have been suspended for

what was viewed as ‘‘the public good.’’

And in almost every case, those have

been mistakes.

In retrospect, few of us can really defend the wholesale incarceration of

Americans of Japanese descent at the

outset of World War II. It must have

seemed the proper action at the time.

None of us can now defend Senator

Joe McCarthy’s witch hunt for communists in the entertainment business,

although we were a nation in fear of

spreading communism.

Few of us who remember the civil

disobedience of the late sixties, can defend the excess of Federal investigators

who tapped the phones of dissidents,

investigated the lives of civil rights

leaders or spied on those whose only

crime was having strongly held opinions that opposed the official position

of our Government.

Make no mistake. Those who executed this bombing are outlaws of the

worst kind; misguided and sick people

hiding behind some cause so they can

inflict human suffering on people they

don’t even know.

But they in this case doesn’t include

everyone in America who opposes Government excess.
April 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5635

It doesn’t include people who choose

to exercise their constitutional right

to assemble, right to free speech, right

to keep and bear arms, to practice responsible civil disobedience, or to disagree with the Federal Government.

Neither the ultra right nor the ultra

left, neither conservative radio programs nor the liberal media are guilty

of this crime. The criminals who did it

are responsible.

Those who would use this act of barbarism to lay blame on their political

or ideological enemies, do every citizen

of this Nation a great disservice. They

are attempting to place the blame

somewhere other than on the shoulders

of the criminals themselves, not because of their grief, but the callous political self interest.

It also shows they have a shallow understanding of what makes our country

great.

In this Nation, the rights of the individual come first. The guilty must be

found, tried and punished.

The rights of the innocent must be

preserved.

In this Nation, ideas and beliefs are

not crimes. God forbid that they ever

will be.

That is the constitutional prescription for our freedom. It should not be

sacrificed for the short term political

gain or national comfort.

(At the request of Mr. DOLE, the following statement was ordered to be

printed in the RECORD.)

∑ Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the

sense of the Senate resolution offered

by the Senators from Oklahoma and

the majority leader and minority leader reflects the desire of the U.S. Senate

to voice its outrage at the horrible

bombing of the Federal building in

Oklahoma City as well as our desire to

see swift punishment for those responsible. The resolution also offers the

Senate an opportunity to express concern and sympathy for the lives tragically affected by this crime.

To the families of those injured or

lost in the bombing, I offer my deepest

sympathies. We all offer our thanks to

the rescue workers, volunteers and law

enforcement officials who have responded to the crisis with bravery,

compassion, and extraordinary professionalism. Out of the depths of the despair caused by this criminal act,

Americans are finding renewed unity

and strength as we face together this

adversity.

Right after the blast I was asked if

this type of attack is the price our Nation must pay for a free and open society. I do not accept the thesis that we

must live in fear—for our lives, for the

safety of our children, or for our own

ability to express ourselves. After all,

our Nation is founded on the principles

of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of these precepts was honored by the terrorists

who ended or forever altered the lives

of the victims of the Oklahoma City

blast.

I personally rely upon my faith to

help understand this tragedy and gain

a sense that justice will be served. As a

Senator, I will join every other government official in the effort to ensure

that the hunt for the perpetrators of

this crime is successful and swift. And

although I cannot support the imposition of the death penalty because of my

longtime conscientious objection to it,

I nonetheless condemn the crime in the

harshest terms and am eager to know

that the criminals are behind bars.

f ∑

THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE

COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a

privilege to join today in celebrating

the 100th anniversary of the Combined

Jewish Philanthropies.

The Combined Jewish Philanthropies

has always been at the forefront of issues vital to the Jewish community,

and I have been proud to work with

members of this organization. As an organization that grew from 5 Jewish

agencies in 1895 to more than 80 agencies in 1995, it has developed into one of

the most successful charitable organizations in the world. Throughout these

years, the CJP has had extraordinary

success in improving the lives of countless people.

The CJP has helped to alleviate the

horrors of the past by assisting in the

rescue and resettlement of hundreds of

thousands of survivors of the Holocaust, and it has faced the challenges

of the present by assisting in the emigration and resettlement of large numbers of Soviet Jews. It has also laid a

solid foundation for promoting social

justice through programs that create

jobs, help the needy, care for the elderly, and educate children.

During my years in the Senate, I

have been proud to work with members

of the CJP on many social programs in

Massachusetts, including Jewish vocational services, family services, and

Big Brother/Big Sister programs. We

have worked together to develop counseling and job training initiatives for

the Jewish community in our State,

and we have helped over 5,000 Jewish

immigrants during the past 6 years

find jobs in Massachusetts. We have

also worked together to ensure that

young persons in need of role models

have the opportunity to participate in

the Big Brother/Big Sister programs in

Massachusetts. It has also been a privilege to work with the CJP against

antisemitism in the former Soviet

Union and for the right of emigration.

The CJP’s centennial celebration

comes during a time of great challenge

and great opportunity for the friends of

Israel. All of us deplore the tragic violence that continues to plague the

peace process in the Middle East. But I

look forward to working closely with

the CJP, the Clinton administration,

and my colleagues in Congress, to secure a just and lasting peace and to ensure that Israel’s vital security interests are protected.

I extend my respect and warmest

wishes as the CJP enters its second

century.

VOLUNTEERS HELP KEEP

CALIFORNIA BEAUTIFUL

fMrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise

today in support of thousands of California volunteers who have contributed

their time and hard work this month

to ensure California remains the Golden State that its people, the rest of the

country, and the world have come to

treasure.

April is Keep California Beautiful

Month, and the nonprofit Keep California Beautiful, Inc., supported by thousands of individuals and businesses, as

well as county, State and Federal agencies, have organized more than a hundred community-based projects to improve and maintain our publicly owned

lands and facilities, from parks in

inner cities to the wide-open spaces we

all love. The specific objectives are to

reduce litter, remove graffiti, expand

recycling, and enhance natural resources in urban and rural areas.

This year, 1995, is the beginning of

what we all hope will be an ever-increasing annual event in the years to

come. As we tighten our belts and

streamline government at all levels,

volunteer efforts like Keep California

Beautiful become even more important. In fact, the synergy created by

the private-public partnership of this

effort will, I believe, actually multiply

our capability to do the hands-on work

needed in all parts of the State.

This year’s success will be the first of

an ongoing annual event for years and

years to come. That way, not only are

we improving California for our children, but hopefully our children will

improve it for their children. It is that

kind of spirit that makes California

special.

I commend my fellow Californians

for their efforts and encourage everyone to get involved in Keep California

Beautiful Month next year.

WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE?

THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

fMr. HELMS. Mr. President, the skyrocketing Federal debt, which long ago

soared into the stratosphere, is in a

category like the weather—everybody

talks about it but almost nobody had

undertaken the responsibility of trying

to do anything about it until immediately following the elections last November.

When the 104th Congress convened in

January, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a balanced budget

amendment. In the Senate only 1 of the

Senate’s 54 Republicans opposed the

balanced budget amendment; only 13

Democrats supported it. Thus, the balanced budget amendment failed by just

one vote. There will be another vote

later this year or next year.