The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE ENVIRONMENT OF EXTREMISM” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Senate section on pages S5631-S5635 on April 25, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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:
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.
____________________
