[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5631-S5635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      THE ENVIRONMENT OF EXTREMISM

  Mr. 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, 
[[Page S5632]] 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 Reagan-Bush, 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 
[[Page 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 have-nots.
       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 
     pay-as-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.
       [[Page S5634]] 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.
  [[Page 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.


                          ____________________