[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand that Senators on both sides 
representing the leadership have been called to the White House and 
will not be back in the Senate before 6:30. I, therefore, make the 
following unanimous-consent request:
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending bill and the amendments by 
Senators Kerrey and Brown in the first degree and the amendment by 
Senator Hatfield in the second degree remain in status quo until the 
hour of 6:30 p.m.; that no other amendments be in order; and that at 
the hour of 6:30 p.m. there be 15 minutes for debate, 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senators, Messrs. Kerrey and Brown; 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon, [Mr. Hatfield]; and 5 minutes 
retaining for myself; and upon the expiration of the 15 minutes that I 
have alluded to, the vote then occur on the motion to table, which I 
will make before taking my seat.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield to Senator Brown, who reserves the right to object.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow, my impression is 
that the Hatfield amendment is a serious amendment. I know it is 
heartfelt and would have significant budget impact in terms of savings.
  My own hope is that the distinguished Senator might consider allowing 
the distinguished ranking member a separate vote on his amendment so it 
would not be confused in terms of the amendment offered by Senator 
Kerrey and 11 other Senators. I wonder if the distinguished Senator 
would consider two motions, one to table the Hatfield amendment and one 
to table the Kerrey amendment. By going with those two votes, of 
course, which could be stacked, it would allow Members to express their 
individual feelings on the measures, which are significantly different.
  Mr. BYRD. I respond to the distinguished Senator by saying, no, I 
would move to table the underlying amendment, which would carry with it 
the Hatfield amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the Senator considering it, even though the 
results are not what I hoped for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I might 
make inquiry of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I 
understand what the Senator's intent is. It seems to me that that might 
leave a window for approximately 1 hour. I am wondering if the Senator 
might, therefore, amend his request to permit for the laying aside of 
those amendments so other amendments at least could be put forth.
  I have another amendment I would like to put forth, rather than 
waiting until possibly 7 o'clock, and I may or may not even get an 
opportunity at that time. And we could have a vote on that at any other 
time thereafter.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator has a right to call up another 
amendment.
  In responding to the Senator, may I ask a question of him? Does his 
amendment pertain either to the Kerrey-Brown amendment or to the 
Hatfield amendment?
  Mr. D'AMATO. No, it does not. That is why I say it could be heard 
independently and voted on at some other time. I did not think the 
Senator wanted to preclude others but rather wanted to keep the 
business going. So that would be my only objection.
  Could the Senator provide for an opportunity then to lay aside the 
amendments so other amendments could be heard?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I add to my unanimous consent request a 
provision that the pending amendments by Senators Kerrey and Brown and 
Hatfield be temporarily laid aside so that other amendments may be 
introduced in the meantime.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia retains the 
floor.
  Mr. BYRD. That is all right. I yield. The Senator reserves the right 
to object.
  Mr. KERREY. I ask the distinguished President pro tempore, by 
combining this tabling motion, we are essentially voting on both the 
amendment of the Senator from Oregon and the amendment offered by 11 
others, is that correct?
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. I respectfully object.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will not object because the Senator well 
knows I have the strength to stand on my feet and lungs to have the 
capacity of carrying on for another hour, if necessary.
  I intend to make the motion to table, and I do not want to vote on 
that motion at the present time because I want to accommodate the 
leaders on both sides who have been called down to the White House and 
cannot return until 6:30. I want to protect them.
  May I say to the distinguished Senator, he really accomplishes 
nothing by making an objection. I could move to table now and put the 
Senate into a quorum. I can do various things that will keep us here 
until 6:30, and there will not be a vote. In the meantime, the Senator 
from New York will not have an opportunity to call up his amendment. We 
are simply delaying action on this very important bill, and we must 
complete action on this bill this evening in order to go to conference 
tomorrow, in order to bring back a conference report tomorrow night or 
Friday, in order to fully act on those conference reports in both 
Houses, in order that the bill may go to the President for his 
signature by Friday.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, if 
the Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield for a question.
  Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that the rules allow this procedure to 
occur, and not wanting to delay the supplemental is unquestionably 
something that affects my judgment to object. But does the Senator 
believe that 11 to 18 Members who have worked since last August to 
prepare this amendment, hundreds of hours in meetings in good faith, 
trying to come to an agreement, not with any effort to hide from anyone 
what we were doing--in fact, we have had meetings with the leadership 
on both sides, describing what we are doing. Is there an element of 
fairness? I know the distinguished President pro tempore is someone who 
is guided very often by the question of fairness.
  Does it seem fair that a substitute amendment will essentially cloud 
the vote? There will be many Members that will come and will vote on 
this saying ``no'' and not cite their opposition to the underlying 
amendment. They will cite their opposition instead to the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from Oregon and thus it is going to be 
difficult, it seems to me, for the American people to judge where in 
fact the cards lie.
  I am appealing to the fairness, which is legendary, of the 
distinguished President pro tempore. We have worked long and hard. We 
have disclosed what we are doing. It seems to me, in fairness, we 
should have an opportunity to get some fairly direct up or down vote on 
this amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on the question of fairness, this Senator 
spent most of the afternoon listening to the arguments of the authors 
of the amendment. It is not a question of fairness.
  This rule on the motion to table has been incorporated in the Senate 
rules for 200 years, and prior to that in the various colonial 
legislatures and prior to that in the Parliament of England. That rule 
has been available a long time.
  As one who has had to use the rules here many times, as the majority 
leader and as minority leader and as the majority leader again, I am 
very familiar with the fact that an amendment in the first degree is 
open to an amendment in the second degree.
  I am also very familiar with the fact that a motion to table the 
amendment in the first degree is perfectly fair. It is within the rules 
and it carries with it the amendment in the second degree. That is my 
full intention, to have the Senate vote to table both amendments at the 
same time.
  I have no compunctions about fairness. I will go home with a clear 
conscience tonight. The Senator from Nebraska knows the rules. Every 
person is assumed to know the law, and all Senators are assumed to know 
the rules around here. There is no rule that says, in fairness, one 
should not move to table the amendment in the first degree. I have 
never heard that. I have been in the Senate now 36 years, and I have 
never heard that one sprung on me.
  But I must say that I plead my case before the bar of Senatorial 
opinion and that is I am being fair. I am using the rules. I know what 
I am doing.
  So I will either move now and talk until 6:30 on other matters or 
have a quorum call and we will not get to call up the amendment by the 
Senator from New York.
  If it were a question of fairness, may I say to the Senator, if it 
were a question of fairness, the Senator from Nebraska would have no 
problem with this. It is not a question of fairness.
  Sometimes we bend over a little bit too much around here to 
accommodate Senators. Their comes a time when a fellow who crawls into 
the ring with the champ, if it is Mr. Bowe or whoever it is, he has to 
take his chances with same gloves that Mr. Bowe uses. And that is where 
we are now. We are in the ring.
  Mr. KERREY. I appreciate the response of the distinguished President 
pro tempore.
  I am not asking for the judgment of the Senate to reach a conclusion 
that I know the rules as well as the distinguished President pro 
tempore. That is obviously not the case.
  But, I would ask, with great respect, if it would be agreeable to 
allow perhaps an additional 5 minutes for those of us who would like to 
make the final case to speak on that at 6:30.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I revise my request to provide that those 
who support the amendment in the first degree may have 10 minutes, 15 
minutes?
  Mr. KERREY. Ten would be fine.
  Mr. BYRD. Ten minutes beginning at the hour of 6:30; that the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] have 5 minutes at that 
time; that I have not to exceed 10 minutes, following the other 
Senators; that the vote then occur on the motion to table the 
underlying first-degree amendment; that meanwhile, the amendments 
retain their status quo; and that they be temporarily set aside to 
allow other Senators to offer amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I now make a motion to table in accordance with the 
statement I made earlier and in accordance with the order that has been 
entered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to table 
has now been made and the amendments are temporarily laid aside until 
the hour of 6:30.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 1442

       (Purpose: To extend the RTC Civil Statute of Limitations)

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1442.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . Extension of RTC Civil Statute of Limitations.

       Section 21A(b)(14)(C) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1441a(b)(14)(C) is amended by striking clause (i) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(i) the period beginning on the date the claim accrues 
     (as determined pursuant to section 11(d)(14)(B) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act) and ending on the date the 
     Corporation is terminated pursuant to section 21A(m)(1); 
     or''.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have been coming to the floor of the 
Senate now every day since it became apparent to me that the 
Whitewater/Madison situation was reaching a critical point. It is now 
February 9, with the statute of limitations running out on February 28.
  Now we lose another day. We still have not received any meaningful 
response. We can mark off Wednesday, February 9. We are now down to 19 
days, and the stonewalling tactics of the RTC, the four-corner stall, 
seems to be working.
  More importantly, it becomes more obvious today that there is an 
increasing need to see to it that the statute of limitations, as it 
relates to this matter, should be tolled. And yet, we are not advised 
by the RTC that that is the case.
  Mr. President, I read today the headlines of the Washington Times--if 
the allegations made hold-up, it will prove to be a very disturbing 
revelation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this article be printed in 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Feb. 9, 1994]

                  Rose Firm Shreds Whitewater Records

                            (By Jerry Seper)

       Little Rock's Rose Law Firm--where first lady Hillary 
     Rodham Clinton, Associate Attorney General Webster L. Hubbell 
     and former White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr., 
     were partners before they came to Washington--last week 
     shredded Whitewater Development Corp. records held in its 
     possession, The Washington Times has learned.
       The records, according to an employee of the firm, included 
     documents showing President and Mrs. Clinton's involvement, 
     along with partners James B. McDougal and his then-wife, 
     Susan, in the north Arkansas real estate venture now under 
     federal investigation.
       Special counsel Robert B. Fiske Jr., appointed Jan. 20 by 
     Attorney General Janet Reno, is looking into allegations that 
     Mr. McDougal, former owner of Madison Guaranty Savings and 
     Loan Association, illegally manipulated S&L loans and 
     improperly diverted money to several powerful Arkansas 
     politicians, including Gov. Clinton.
       Mr. Foster, whose body was found July 20 in a Virginia park 
     in what federal authorities said was a suicide, was the 
     Clintons' personal lawyer and represented the couple for the 
     Rose firm in the Whitewater matter.
       ``There's absolutely no doubt that the records destroyed 
     last Thursday were those the firm had on Whitewater,'' said 
     the employee, who asked not to be named. ``There were a lot 
     of papers, and the process took quite a long time.
       ``A bunch of the stuff was there to be read, and it was 
     felt that this could be very bad,'' the employee said.
       A second Rose employee who took part in the shredding 
     declined comment. In a telephone interview, he would not say 
     if he had shredded Whitewater documents or witnessed their 
     destruction, but he declined to say the incident had not 
     occurred.
       ``I'm not going to comment,'' said the employee, who 
     earlier had confided to friends that the shredding had taken 
     place and that he was ``scared to death'' about it.
       ``I'm not going to say anything about what happened. I 
     would just prefer not to say anything about this at all.''
       A friend of this employee, who also requested anonymity, 
     confirmed the conversation in which the employee said he was 
     frightened. She said she was told there was concern at the 
     firm about what had happened and anxiety over the possibility 
     that employees could be fired because the matter had become 
     known to The Washington Times.
       Ronald M. Clark, managing partner at the Rose firm, did not 
     return telephone calls to his office yesterday seeking 
     comment about the destruction of the documents.
       It's not clear whether the shredding violated state or 
     federal laws, but a high-ranking Justice Department 
     prosecutor in an earlier administration said that under 
     certain interpretations of federal law, the shredding could 
     be considered obstruction of justice.
       ``This is outrageous,'' he said. ``If what happened was not 
     illegal, and there is a question about that, then it 
     certainly was highly unethical.''
       An officer of the FBI describes it as a ``curious thing to 
     do at this point,'' particularly since the Rose firm had to 
     be aware that Whitewater was part of an ongoing federal 
     probe.
       ``It certainly is no secret Whitewater is under 
     investigation--it's been on the front page every day,'' he 
     said. ``Maybe they have taken the position that it's 
     privileged information and want to protect their client.
       ``But if they shredded the records with the intent of 
     preventing their discovery, that might be a different 
     thing.''
       Others recalled that shredding documents during his tenure 
     at the National Security Council proved costly to Marine Lt. 
     Col. Oliver North. He was convicted in May 1989 and sentenced 
     to two years' probation, 1,200 hours of community service and 
     a $150,000 fine. The sentence was overturned on appeal in 
     July 1990 by a federal appeals court.
       The Fiske inquiry includes a review of money said to have 
     been funneled by Madison to the Whitewater project, including 
     a $300,000 Small Business Administration loan obtained by 
     Mrs. McDougal.
       David L. Hale, a former Little Rock municipal judge now 
     under indictment on unrelated SBA fraud charges, said Mr. 
     Clinton, then the governor, and Mr. McDougal presured him to 
     authorize the loan. About $110,000 of it eventually found its 
     way into the Whitewater account.
       Mr. McDougal has denied any wrongdoing.
       Federal authorities have said the Clintons are not 
     ``targets'' of the Whitewater-Madison probe, although Mr. 
     Fiske has said he intends to question both of them under 
     oath. They also have denied any improprieties.
       It was not clear which specific Whitewater documents would 
     have been kept by the Rose firm, but Mr. Foster personally 
     handled the Whitewater matter for the Clintons, including:
       The December sale of the couple's half-share of Whitewater.
       Mr. Foster met with Mr. McDougal in November 1992 to sell 
     the couple's partnership interests for $1,000 and later 
     arranged for it to be taken as a capital gain on the 
     Clinton's personal tax return.
       Whitweater's failure to file corporate income tax records 
     for a three-year period.
       The omission was discovered after Mr. Foster met with Mr. 
     McDougal to execute the Whitewater sale. In December 1992, 
     Mr. Foster filed corporate tax returns for the Clintons 
     claiming Whitewater had earned no income.
       Mr. Foster also was responsible for the establishment of a 
     blind trust for the Clintons' assets to satisfy ethical 
     concerns about the couple's personal business deals. The task 
     was not accomplished until six months after Mr. Clinton took 
     office--and three days before Mr. Foster's death.
       The Fiske investigation will include a review of the Foster 
     suicide. Whitewater documents were secretly taken from his 
     office by White House officials after his body was found.
       Last month, after The Washington Times reported that 
     records had been removed from Mr. Foster's office, the White 
     House turned over to the Justice Department 10 boxes of what 
     it said were Whitewater documents. The delivery came in 
     response to a federal grand jury subpoena the White House had 
     negotiated with the Justice Department to keep the documents 
     sealed from public view.
       It was not clear whether other records held by the Rose 
     firm pertaining to the Clintons had also been shredded.
       Several federal law enforcement authorities have been 
     concerned about a possible conflict of interest involving 
     Mrs. Clinton's ties to an investment group and about a stock 
     partnership involving Mr. Foster and Mr. Hubbell.
       Specifically, these concerns involve:
       Value Partners, an investment group that ``sold short'' on 
     several health care stocks after the Clintons moved into the 
     White House.
       By the time of the sale, Mrs. Clinton had actively taken 
     charge of the president's health care task force. Selling 
     short is the practice of selling shares not held for future 
     delivery in anticipation of buying the shares later at a 
     reduced price.
       In December 1992, Value Partners had $1.2 million invested 
     in 10 health care stocks, or about 13 percent of its total 
     portfolio. The conflict focused on allegations that, as the 
     head of the health care task force, Mrs. Clinton's public 
     statements about health care and price controls depressed the 
     price of shares in health care stocks, making the shares 
     available at a reduced price.
       Midlife Investors, a partnership set up in 1983 by Roy P. 
     Drew, a broker working at the time at the E.F. Hutton office 
     in Little Rock.
       According to the Clintons' joint tax returns, Mrs. Clinton 
     was a partner in Midlife from 1983 until at least the end of 
     1991. The address listed for the partnership is the Rose 
     firm.
       Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hubbell and Mr. Foster each put up 
     $15,000 naming the others--not their spouses--as 
     beneficiaries.
       The Clintons' tax returns show the partnership never 
     yielded much taxable dividend income, a finding that surprise 
     Mr. Drew, now a private consultant. He said it would be ``a 
     stretch of the imagination'' to believe the venture did not 
     yield dividends, based on its stock purchases which included 
     Firestone Tire and Diamond Shamrock.
       The Clintons and McDougals were joint partners in 
     Whitewater and planned to build vacation homes on 42 lots 
     along the White River in the Arkansas Ozarks. The project 
     failed.
       According to records at the Marion County Courthouse in 
     Yellville, Ark., the partnership appears to have been 
     structured to enable the Clintons to receive half the profits 
     with little or no investment.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Let me just show you the headline. ``Rose Firm Shreds 
Whitewater Records; Employee Says Paper Detailed Clinton's 
Involvement.''
  Let me say that I have heard people say, ``Look, we are going to have 
a special counsel. He is eminently qualified, a man who is 
distinguished, a man of great integrity, Mr. Fiske. Well, let us wait 
for this report.''
  Well, it is ridiculous to think that his report is going to be done 
by the 28th. And what about the civil liability for intentional or 
willful conduct? The statute will have run, barring the bringing a 
suit.
  And so it is the intention of this Senator to offer legislation 
picking up on the challenge, of Senator Metzenbaum, our distinguished 
colleague from Ohio, who suggested yesterday that we extend the statute 
of limitations. That we extend the statute of limitations for all of 
the institutions, and I will join with you in supporting that 
proposal.''
  Mr. President, that is exactly what we seek to do with this 
amendment. This amendment would extend the current statute of 
limitations to the end of December, 1995. That date has been chosen 
because that is when the RTC ceases to exist.
  Yesterday on the floor, the Senator said he would join with me in 
extending the current statute of limitations. That is what this 
amendment does.
  It extends the current statute of limitations, not only for Madison, 
but uniformly to all of those thrifts until December 31, 1995. It uses 
almost the exact language of Senator Metzenbaum, because he sent me a 
proposal last evening, sent to our staff, except with a minor change as 
it relates to the statute.
  By the way, if we are going to go out of session tomorrow we have as 
a practical matter, 1 day on Thursday, we come back in on the 22nd, 
that gives us 2, 3, 4, 5--6 days, practically, that we will be in 
session before the statute runs.
  When we begin to get these allegations, evidenced by headlines like 
the ``Rose Firm Shreds Whitewater Records,'' when we see we have a 
total of some 19 days left and the statute to run--How can the people's 
interest be protected in these situations? How is it we can see to it 
that what should be done is done?
  I have been accused of raising the Madison case and no other. I have 
been accused of having voted against extending the statute of 
limitations. As I explained yesterday, that is not the case.
  The fact of the matter is, I said where there are cases of fraud, 
where there are cases of wilful and intentional conduct, certainly we 
should extend the statute of limitations.
  Indeed, that was the language which the Senate Banking and House 
Banking conferees came up with. So what we are doing here --so we can 
explain it again--that legislation is simply taking the existing 
statute, extending it to the termination date of the RTC, which is 
December 31, 1995. It seems to me that, then, protects the interests of 
the taxpayers.
  My colleague from Ohio brought up the fact there was a bank in 
Texas--I am not quite sure of the name--that went into receivership at 
the same time; that there was approximately $1.5 billion that the 
taxpayers had to pay. He said why do we not include them? This is 
exactly what this legislation would do. It would include some 500 
institutions that otherwise would have the statute of limitations toll 
previously.
  It would give the RTC additional time. And what it would do is give 
the RTC time to reconsider or evaluate new information. For instance, 
in the specific case of Madison--where we are now into the business of 
the alleged shredding of documents--we do not know where documents are. 
Some have been sent to the Justice Department, some have been sent to 
other areas, but we now hear this distressing news. It may or may not 
be true. It may or may not be true that these documents were shredded. 
But let us see. Let us preserve the taxpayers' rights and let us make 
it possible for Mr. Fiske to do his job.
  If there are no criminal penalties, or conduct, if there are civil 
penalties or civil liability, he then can refer this matter to the 
appropriate people.
  In the meantime the RTC has sufficient time to carry out their duties 
and their responsibilities.
  I believe that by doing this we can demonstrate to the American 
people that we really care.
  I believe that by extending the statute of limitations across the 
board we say: Look, we want the regulators to have sufficient time to 
see to it that this matter is handled appropriately. We do not want to 
have a situation where, day after day, anyone raises the issue that the 
statute is being allowed to toll. That simply does not make sense.
  I know some of my colleagues are tired of this. But let me tell you, 
when 41 Senators need to send a letter of inquiry to the head of the 
RTC something is wrong. People have a right to these answers. It would 
seem to me if 41 Senators sent the letter yesterday, that by today we 
should have received something from Mr. Altman, which raises another 
point. I have touched on it and I said I would touch on it tonight.
  I do not understand how Mr. Altman can really discharge his duties 
when he is a Presidential appointee and we are talking about him being 
the top person at an agency that should be engaged in an investigation 
of a case that certainly involves the White House directly and 
indirectly, and the former law firm of Mrs. Clinton and people closely 
associated and connected.
  Let us be fair about this. It is not fair for Mr. Altman to be placed 
in this situation. We should have a process of recusal.
  Mr. Altman has been the titular, or acting head, now for some 11 
months. It is wrong. It is inappropriate. And we have to really put a 
stop to this fiasco.
  I assure my colleagues I am then in a position to say ``fine, we can 
give them some time when they come in for review. We do not have to try 
to have the Banking Committee have the RTC come in for review on the 
22nd or 23rd and ascertain what, if anything, they have been doing in 
regard to this matter.''
  I see my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator 
Murkowski is here. I know he intends to speak to the issue.
  Mr. President, at this point in time I would like to ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a 
sufficient second.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Chair--I did not hear his response?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I will renew that at another point in 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague and good 
friend, the Senator from New York.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from 
New York and the ranking member of the Banking Committee in 
cosponsoring this amendment.
  I think it has already been said. If we had a response to the letters 
that have been sent to the RTC, we would not be here today. I am sure 
the Senator from New York would not be offering his amendment, because 
the issue would have been resolved. The RTC would have acquiesced in a 
responsible way to extend the tolling of the statute of limitations in 
this case or it could file appropriate charges in the civil matter 
relating to the many questions that are before all of us with regard to 
the realization that the taxpayers have lost some $47 million and it is 
appropriate the tolling be extended.
  I think we would all recognize the distinguished Senator from New 
York has come to the floor for more than a week to remind the Senate 
that the statute of limitations clock is ticking on several cases that 
are currently being investigated by the Resolution Trust Corporation. 
Unless the RTC enters into the tolling agreements with the parties 
under investigation prior to February 28, RTC will be precluded from 
completing these investigations and bringing suit to recover at the 
expense of, obviously, the taxpayers.
  One of these cases, of courses, involves the failure of Madison 
Guaranty, which some have called a private piggy bank for some of the 
insiders and some members of the Arkansas political establishment. To 
the American public, Madison and Whitewater development have become 
synonymous. Just 3 weeks ago, Attorney General Reno finally gave in to 
mounting public pressure to appoint a special counsel, a distinguished 
gentleman by the name of Robert Fiske, to investigate the entire 
Whitewater affair.
  Of course it is impossible to know how many months, if not years, 
this process will take. No matter what, the cloud of Whitewater will 
not lift until the investigation is completed.
  Mr. President, from what I know, I do not believe that the President 
of the United States, or any members of his family or associates, 
should be really concerned about this investigation or the political 
influences that have been suggested. I believe it will simply put to 
rest all the issues surrounding this affair once and for all.
  I think all of us would agree that it is in the best interest of the 
executive branch. However, as things stand today on February 9, unless 
the RTC enters into a tolling agreement with the parties under 
investigation in connection with the Madison affair, the taxpayers of 
this country will not be afforded an opportunity to recover funds paid 
in to bail out Madison through civil action.
  Yesterday, I was pleased to join 39 of my colleagues in a letter sent 
to the acting Chief Executive Officer of the RTC, Mr. Roger Altman, 
inquiring as to the nature of RTC's efforts to obtain voluntary tolling 
agreements relating to the Madison case.
  This letter serves as a followup of two other letters that had been 
previously sent to Mr. Altman in January. As of today, we still do not 
know whether RTC is pursuing this approach. We have asked for 
assurances. They have not been forthcoming.
  Instead, all the RTC has indicated is that one of the tools available 
to them is to seek to toll the statute of limitations. So, obviously, 
they have the tools but no commitment on tolling has come from RTC. No 
explanation, no response, no indication that they will file civil 
claims if such a tolling cannot be obtained.
  So we address this timeframe with little, if any, certainty, and the 
realization that time is progressing and February 28 is coming. The 
Senate will be in recess next week, so we probably only have 5 or 6 
days left of time for the RTC to act within the timeframe of the 
Senate's schedule.
  I assure you, Mr. President, February 28 is not going to pass 
unnoticed, thanks in large part to the work of my distinguished 
colleague from New York, and that is as it should be. Madison will not 
get off the hook quietly if the RTC lets the statute of limitations 
expire.
  But there is something that we can do to make certain that the 
limitation period does not foreclose taxpayers' recoveries. We can 
extend the statute of limitation for all cases--all cases--and this is 
the point of the amendment of the Senator from New York, to extend the 
statute of limitation for all cases involving allegations of fraud or 
intentional misconduct. As I said, that is precisely what the Senator's 
amendment does.
  The issue before the Senate is not the issue of Madison Guaranty. The 
investigation of Madison Guaranty should be treated in the same fashion 
as any other S&L investigation. There should not be special treatment 
afforded Madison. If there was wrongdoing, it should be punished. But 
if there is an opportunity to recover funds, the RTC should not be 
precluded from taking action because of time constraints. There are 
simply too many taxpayer dollars affected by all of these 
investigations.
  I think it only fair that we give the RTC a full opportunity to 
complete this and all of its investigations. I think that is a point 
those who have criticized the discussion the Senator from New York and 
I have had would agree on: There should be no special treatment, and 
this is what the amendment of the Senator from New York simply does.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I wonder if the Senator will yield.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Before I said I will renew my request, Mr. President, 
and I renew my request because I am intent on pressing this. I think we 
should take this to a vote, so I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the President and I thank my friend for 
yielding. I will point out that he has made a very excellent point, and 
that point is we do not want any different treatment. We are not asking 
that Madison be treated any differently than any other institution but 
that there be at least the same treatment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague from New York.
  Mr. President, I know that there are procedural rules in the Senate 
which make it difficult for us to legislate on appropriations bills. I 
see the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate who has led 
oftentimes that discussion very eloquently.
  But as we all know, the Senate rules are flexible and they can be 
waived when a majority of Senators believe the issue is important 
enough to justify a waiver. I think it is fair to say in the view of 
the Senator from Alaska, this is one of those cases where the rules 
ought to be waived.
  The underlying legislation we are considering is an emergency bill. 
For the most part, it seeks to channel more than $7 billion of Federal 
funds to victims of the California earthquake and, as it comes to the 
floor, it is not paid for. I expect that it will not be paid for. I 
believe that the February 28 deadline also represents a reasonable and 
responsible emergency, a foreseeable emergency, but nonetheless an 
emergency. If we allow this deadline to pass and if the RTC does not 
obtain the tolling agreements, the Government potentially will lose the 
opportunity to attempt to recover as much as--it has been estimated--$3 
billion for the American taxpayer.
  Maybe the Government will not recover that much. Maybe it will 
recover only $1 billion or $500 million, but it stands to recover a 
substantial amount if, indeed, the extension becomes a reality. 
Whatever the amount that is ultimately recovered, we should not allow 
the statute of limitations to stand in the way, especially when the 
conduct for which we are extending the statute relates to fraud and 
intentional misconduct.
  Mr. President, I respectfully urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment of the Senator from New York.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alaska yield the floor?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Alaska yields the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in the interest of expediting our 
procedure, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside, and I would like an opportunity to offer an 
amendment on which I would be happy to agree to a time limit. I think 
it can be handled very quickly and if, indeed, a vote is appropriate, 
it can be joined with the votes pending to follow the vote on the Byrd 
motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I object, not because I have any quarrel with my 
friend from Colorado, but because I would like to respond to the 
Senator from New York and his amendment first. Maybe I can do so 
briefly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. I 
do not mean to be rude to him.
  I rise to support the amendment to extend the statute of limitations 
that pretty much reflects the language that I sent to the Senator from 
New York late yesterday pursuant to the debate that we had on the 
floor.
  Extending the statute will mean that there are about 600 thrift cases 
that will be subject to the possibility of bringing action in the 
courts of the United States, and I think that is appropriate.
  My quarrel with the Senator from New York the last couple of times I 
was on the floor with him had to do with the fact that he was speaking 
more about one case, Madison. My concern is that we ought to treat all 
the savings and loans the same way.
  So perhaps out of this rather contentious debate that occurred 
between the Senator from New York and myself, we really may wind up 
doing the taxpayers a great service. I am frank to say, I said 
yesterday that I would send him language to extend the statute, and I 
said I would do it before 5 o'clock, which we did. The Senator from New 
York received it. The Senator from New York accepted it and has offered 
it as an amendment today.
  I hope the Senate will see fit to accept it, adopt it, and I hope 
that we can retain it in conference.


                amendment no. 1443 to amendment no. 1442

            (Purpose: To perfect D'Amato amendment No. 1442)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, a 
perfecting amendment, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Second degree.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1443 to D'Amato amendment 1442.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Delete lines 3 through 10 of D'Amato amendment No. 1442, 
     and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(a) Section 21A(b)(14)(C) of the Federal Home Loan Bank 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1441a(b)(14)(C) is amended by striking clause 
     (i) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(i) the period beginning on the date the claim accrues 
     (as determined pursuant to section 11(d)(14)(B) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act) and ending on December 31, 
     1995; or.''

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, if I might, the perfecting amendment is 
just that. It is a perfecting amendment. It does not do anything to 
change the relevant dates or the terms. It is to protect the amendment 
from being changed.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the second-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me, if I might, say to the Senator 
from Ohio, we may have had our differences, but I absolutely wish to 
commend him for moving forward, keeping his word, and being a man of 
his word. The Senator from Ohio I think had legitimate concern that I 
was looking for some kind of special, preferential treatment, singling 
out one institution. And while that was not my intent, it is obvious 
that he has had a goal, and his goal has been throughout to see to it 
that the RTC does everything to recover as much money as possible 
against all of those who may have committed acts that subject them to 
civil liability, and to seek civil enforcement, on behalf of the 
taxpayers.
  It was with that in mind that I believe he made the offer last 
evening.
  He rightfully pointed out there were a number of institutions, for 
which the state of limitations would run on the same date, on the 28th. 
The RTC would not be able to bring action even if there were actionable 
claims without getting tolling agreements. I believe it was his intent 
to see to it that everybody was treated fairly, but, more importantly, 
the American taxpayers' rights were preserved.
  I thank the Senator from Ohio for coming forth with a solution that I 
hope now will give us the time and the opportunity to see that all of 
these cases are handled fairly, and, in addition, will give to the 
special prosecutor the opportunity to make his report and will make it 
less of a time crunch; where there are those of us who may feel the 
matter is not being handled appropriately, this will give the RTC 
through December of 1995 to handle not only this matter, but as I think 
the Senator has indicated previously, other institutions where the 
statute will otherwise run soon. Some of them that has chalked up an 
astounding loss of something like $1.5 billion, which also would be 
tolled.
  So I commend my colleague, the Senator from Ohio, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not have an amendment, I say to the Senator from 
Colorado. I will be finished speaking in 3 minutes or less.
  Madam President, I rise to compliment the distinguished Chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee for some language he put in this bill 
relative to disaster relief.
  After the floods in the Midwestern United States and before the last 
catastrophe and disaster in California, at an appropriations meeting 
where we were figuring out what we ought to do for the floods, I raised 
the question as to whether we really had adequate laws on the books 
with reference to the kinds of problems with which we are confronted.
  I happen to know a little bit about it. I think the last time we 
changed the disaster laws was, believe it or not, way back when I was 
ranking member of a subcommittee called Disaster Relief. I served on 
the Public Works Committee with then chairman Burdick.
  It strikes me almost intuitively that we need to modernize those 
laws, streamline them, to make sure they are not duplications, and 
sincerely find out whether the laws are being abused. We understand now 
there may be some abuse with reference to illegal aliens getting 18-
month vouchers for rent-free housing. We are not even sure they are 
entitled to them, in our interest in providing and quickly.
  So I said that day that I thought the time had come for a total 
evaluation of disaster programs. I believe the distinguished chairman, 
on page 88 of the bill before us, provides for a task force to advise 
the U.S. Senate on how to respond to future disasters. I wish the House 
would accept this and make it a bicameral task force. The task force 
would be set up, and among the things they would do would be evaluate 
the types and amounts of Federal financial assistance provided to 
individuals, States and  local governments, and nonprofit organizations 
after disasters strike, as well as relevant insurance coverage and loss 
experience.

  I believe I am correct in assuming that this actually means they can 
look at the current status of disaster relief assistance from the 
Federal Government, the entire panorama, and tell us whether we could 
do things better, tell us whether there are some of those laws that 
ought to be changed so as to make the relief more effective, and in 
every respect be considerate of the American taxpayers, so we are 
getting the very best benefit out of the money we spend, and we do it 
generously for all Americans.
  So I am not even going to ask the question. I am just going to assume 
I am correct in this as I compliment the chairman. I believe it is 
pretty clear that if this task force is created, and I hope it is, it 
will look at the current laws, and the administration of them, to see 
if we can do better among the various objectives.
  I yield the floor at this point, once again thanking the chairman for 
his excellent work in this regard.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, in the interest of expediting procedures 
on this bill, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and I be allowed to offer an amendment. I will 
be happy to agree to limiting the time on the discussion of that 
amendment and would ask the vote on the amendment be held after the 
vote on the Byrd tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I hope the 
Senator will modify his request to provide only that the pending 
amendment be set aside temporarily. I do not want to agree at this time 
that the vote will occur on the amendment as the Senator has phrased 
it; that would preclude a tabling motion.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the distinguished Senator's comment.
  Madam President, I would modify my unanimous consent request that the 
pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1444

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I rise and send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1444:

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 81, strike lines 8 through line 14.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, this amendment deals with a portion of 
the bill which would provide additional funding for the Executive 
Office of the President. The money involved is a little over $7 
million.
  The question that is appropriate on this bill is: Should we be adding 
this additional funding under an emergency supplemental? As I 
understand the Budget Act, it is quite clear that emergency 
supplementals must relate to items that, indeed, are emergencies, that 
are sudden, that are urgent, that are unforeseen, and that are 
necessary. It may well be that the Senate and the House of 
Representatives in due course come to the conclusion this is 
appropriate money to be funded, that, indeed, the appropriation should 
be made.
  Madam President, it is very clear that this additional money does not 
fit any of those descriptions. The additional $7 million is not sudden. 
It relates to a matter that has been around several years. It is not 
urgent. It relates to electronic communications management activities. 
These are normal activities related to the office. They in no way fit 
the definition of either sudden or urgent. They are by no means 
unforeseen. I believe the Members of this body, when they look at them, 
will conclude also that they are not necessary.
  Let me simply say that the President, I believe, acted wisely when 
over a year ago he called for a 25-percent cut in the Office of the 
Presidency. I believe, unfortunately, this Congress denied him that 
cut. The cut was not taken.
  What this supplemental suggests is that rather than a cut of 25 
percent we are going to have additional funding. We are not only going 
to ignore the call for a cut but we are going to have a supplemental to 
add funding. It is my belief that this not only violates the spirit of 
the President's request originally, but it clearly violates the 
dictates of the Budget Act. If emergency supplementals are going to 
mean anything, we ought to at least be willing to adhere to the clear 
guidelines of the Budget Act.
  So I offer this amendment in the hopes that the Congress will clear 
the bill of measures that do not fit the definition.
  I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a piece written by 
the Republican leader, Robert Dole, dealing with the whole question of 
emergency supplementals at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Nov. 5, 1993]

Congress Loves ``Emergency'' Funding Because Everything Is an Emergency

                             (By Bob Dole)

       A funny thing happened on the way to deficit reduction. 
     After a recent swing through the West, President Clinton sent 
     Congress an urgent request for $315 million in unpaid 
     ``emergency'' disaster assistance to replace the Cypress 
     Freeway in Oakland, Calif. Sen. Pete Domenici, the ranking 
     Republican on the Budget Committee, protested the timing of 
     the ``emergency'' funding request on the Senate floor after 
     learning that the Freeway had been damaged in the Loma Prieta 
     Earthquake--some four years earlier. Earthquakes are indeed 
     tragedies, but 4-year-old road damage is hardly an 
     ``emergency.'' The amendment was quietly withdrawn, but not 
     before many questions had been raised on the use and possible 
     abuse of the ``emergency'' spending loophole by the Clinton 
     administration.
       In order to rein in runaway spending and impose discipline 
     on the congressional budget process, the Budget Enforcement 
     Act of 1990 put in place caps on spending through 1995. These 
     caps were intended to be ironclad, but as you might expect, 
     Washington gave itself an ``emergency'' exit. The Budget Act 
     drafters included an ``emergency requirement'' to allow 
     Congress and the president to address ``sudden, urgent, 
     unforeseen, necessary or temporary expenditures''--hurricane 
     losses, the costs of Desert Storm--without causing a 
     breakdown in the budget process.
       If a funding request is defined as an ``emergency'' by the 
     president and Congress, the spending does not count against 
     the Appropriations Committee's spending allocations; it just 
     gets added to the deficit. Members of Congress often lobby 
     hard for a presidential ``emergency'' request for their 
     favorite projects--projects that could always be funded 
     through the normal appropriations process if they could be 
     justified on their merits--because an ``emergency'' 
     designation eliminates the painful task of cutting other 
     programs to stay within spending limits. The Cypress Freeway 
     isn't the biggest or worst example of using the ``emergency'' 
     funding loophole, but it does provide a good illustration of 
     some of the complex problems with federal disaster assistance 
     programs.
       The most obvious question is whether the Cypress Freeway 
     request met the original Office of Management and Budget 
     criteria for ``emergency'' spending. Certainly the funding 
     requirement for the Cypress Freeway did not appear--four 
     years after the earthquake--to be ``sudden, urgent, or 
     unforeseen''. The need to replace the freeway has been 
     apparent since its collapse following the 1989 earthquake. 
     Although it was difficult at the time to estimate the cost of 
     replacing the structure, precise estimates of the costs have 
     been available since the Environmental Impact Statement for 
     the project was completed in September 1991.
       If a project is not ``urgent'' or ``unforeseen,'' is it 
     then reasonable to expect the Appropriations Committee to 
     find funding within its regular allocation, no matter what 
     the project costs? If we are serious about controlling 
     federal spending, the answer must be yes. Otherwise, we can 
     no doubt expect to see a string of disaster relief amendments 
     reaching back to the great Chicago fire.
       A less easily answered element of the ``emergency'' 
     definition is, was the spending necessary? The original 
     disaster assistance legislation for the Loma Prieta 
     Earthquake provided $1 billion for federal highway repair. 
     California far exceeded that amount, in large part because 
     the state decided to rebuild the Cypress Freeway in a 
     different location.
       Community pressure in West Oakland, not safety, was the 
     driving factor in the move. County Supervisor Warren Widener, 
     a major opponent of the original double-decker Freeway called 
     the old structure a ``concrete colossus'' that prevented 
     growth, lowered property values and ``divided the area for 32 
     years.'' Unfortunately, this neighborhood beauty makeover 
     increased the taxpayers' bill for the 2.2 mile roadway from 
     $100 million in 1989 to an estimated $695 million in 1993. 
     The cost of purchasing the right of way for the new elevated 
     highway was $230 million--an amount nearly equal to the 
     president's supplemental request. Despite this outrageous 
     cost increase, there has been no outcry from local citizens, 
     no calls for an investigation or impeachment of government 
     officials, because, as the San Francisco Chronicle has 
     explained, ``most of the money comes from Washington and is 
     far removed from local taxpayers' pockets.''
       The Cypress Freeway is not an isolated example of 
     ``emergency'' spending. According to the Republican staff of 
     the Senate Budget Committee, Congress and the president have 
     declared $74.2 billion in ``emergency'' spending since the 
     1990 Budget Agreement. Approximately 80 percent of these 
     expenditures were associated with Desert Storm and Desert 
     Shield and were largely repaid with allied contributions. 
     Domestic ``emergencies'' have totaled $14.3 billion, for 
     disasters ranging from the Midwest floods to Hurricane 
     Andrew.
       The total tab for domestic ``emergencies'' would have 
     almost doubled if President Clinton had succeeded in passing 
     his $12 billion ``Economic Stimulus Package.'' This abuse of 
     the ``emergency'' designation to avoid paying for additional 
     spending was so egregious that Republicans in the Senate 
     united to block and eventually kill the bill. Democrats, for 
     the most part, would not have supported the new spending if 
     they had been required to cut back the other programs. That 
     is why very little of the defeat package made it into later 
     spending bills.
       How do we prevent abuse of the ``emergency'' designations 
     and still leave enough budget flexibility to account for 
     truly catastrophic spending events, such as the Persian Gulf 
     conflict? One option might to be required that any disaster 
     account be funded at a level equal to the average of spending 
     over the past three years. Any spending beyond this level 
     could be exempted from the budget enforcement requirements.
       A more difficult problem is how to prevent so-called 
     ``gold-plating'' of disaster projects. Clearly, we need to 
     ensure that federal funds are provided to return structures 
     to their pre-disaster state; however, it seems to me the 
     federal government is not obligated to rebuild them to some 
     post-disaster ideal. Any improvements, beyond what are needed 
     for safety, should not receive priority over worthwhile 
     projects simply because of their proximity to disaster. The 
     best way to ensure that is to deny extraordinary budgetary 
     treatment to the improvement portion of a project.
       I would encourage Office of Management and Budget Director 
     Leon Panetta--one of the primary backers of the Cypress 
     request--to look carefully at the ``emergency'' budget 
     loophole and offer has own suggestions for reform in the 
     President's next budget submission. If the Clinton 
     administration is serious about cutting spending, its 
     officials need to stop their back-door efforts to evade the 
     very budget rules they worked so hard to put in place.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I would offer an amendment that I 
send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator offering a second-degree 
amendment?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 1445

(Purpose: Sense of the Senate that Federal spending priorities need to 
    be reevaluated in light of the recent Northridge earthquake in 
California and other frequently occurring natural disasters nationwide 
   and that, as part of the reevaluation, the Presidential election 
 campaign fund checkoff should be replaced with a checkoff for Federal 
                      disaster relief assistance)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, is the Senator offering an amendment to 
his own amendment?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator just got consent to lay aside the 
previous amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Has the clerk stated the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk is about to read the amendment.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska, [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1445.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DISASTER ASSISTANCE 
                   FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) during the past 5 years, the United States has suffered 
     a series of natural disasters, including earthquakes, floods, 
     and hurricanes;
       (2) the Federal Government has responded to these events by 
     providing disaster victims with various types of assistance, 
     including temporary shelter and financial assistance;
       (3) in order to meet the costs of providing such 
     assistance, the Congress has enacted 6 emergency supplemental 
     appropriation bills;
       (4) the cost of--
       (A) the 1993 emergency appropriations Act was 
     $5,141,000,000,
       (B) 2 emergency appropriations Acts adopted in 1992 was 
     $5,429,000,000,
       (C) the 1991 emergency appropriations Act was $943,000,000,
       (D) the 1990 emergency appropriations Act was 
     $2,682,000,000, and
       (E) the 1989 emergency appropriations Act was 
     $2,827,000,000;
       (5) the total cost of the emergency appropriations Acts 
     adopted in response to these disasters is more than 
     $17,000,000,000;
       (6) the Congress has failed to offset the cost of these 
     emergency appropriations Acts by reducing other discretionary 
     spending;
       (7) the cost of these emergency appropriations Acts has 
     increased the Federal deficit and added to the 
     $4,515,000,000,000 national debt;
       (8) until 1993, individual taxpayers were permitted to 
     designate that $1 of their Federal tax liability would go 
     into the Presidential Election Campaign Fund;
       (9) the number of taxpayers providing funding for the 
     Presidential Election Campaign Fund has been declining in 
     every year since 1976;
       (10) in 1976, slightly more than 1 in 4 tax returns (27.5 
     percent) contained a checkoff in favor of financing the 
     Presidential Election Campaign Fund;
       (11) in 1992, less than 1 in 5 tax returns (17.7 percent) 
     contained a checkoff in favor of such financing;
       (12) the failure of the overwhelming majority of taxpayers 
     to support the checkoff has resulted in the Congress raising 
     the amount of the checkoff from $1 to $3; and
       (13) the Congress should reevaluate our Federal spending 
     priorities in light of the recent Northridge Earthquake in 
     California and the frequently occurring disasters nationwide, 
     including replacing the Presidential Election Campaign Fund 
     checkoff with a checkoff for Federal disaster relief 
     assistance.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Presidential Election Campaign Fund checkoff should 
     be eliminated and replaced with a checkoff to allow funds to 
     be directed to a dedicated natural disaster trust fund set 
     aside to assist victims of natural disasters;
       (2) such funds should supplement, not supplant, current 
     appropriations for natural disaster assistance;
       (3) caps on allowable discretionary spending should be 
     reduced by the amount of funds directed into a natural 
     disaster trust fund; and
       (4) any funds set aside for natural disaster assistance 
     should be spend before the Congress considers additional 
     emergency spending for natural disaster assistance not 
     subject to offset.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I have a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which I think 
addresses something that has been given a lot of thought in this body; 
my amendment would replace the Presidential election campaign checkoff 
with a checkoff for Federal disaster relief.
  The California earthquake brought about the reality that these 
natural disasters occur. They are unfunded, and they must be funded. We 
really need to reevaluate our spending priorities because we spend 
millions and millions of dollars with the recognition that we do have 
this reoccurrence; yet, at the same time, we are in a situation where 
we do not have the funding and we have to consider it under the merits 
of an urgent supplemental. This amendment would allow the American 
public to choose whether to spend their dollars on the victims of a 
disaster rather than a political process funding political conventions.
  I have before me, Madam President, the U.S. individual income tax 
reform proposal which currently includes a Presidential election 
campaign checkoff for $3. The question before the American public is: 
Do you want to have the sole alternative be simply checking off yes or 
no as to whether your contribution should go to the Presidential 
election campaign, or do you prefer as a consequence of the realization 
that these disasters come frequently to be able to check off a new form 
which would provide only for Federal disaster relief assistance, and 
your $3 would go to this fund?
  That is the basis of the amendment of the Senator from Alaska.
  We want to add to funds already regularly appropriated for disaster 
relief. This is one way to do it. The checkoff would certainly not 
cover the cost of an emergency. But it would reduce the deficit by 
cutting the amount we spend over and above the spending caps.
  We have spend billions in the past to fund natural disasters. And I 
know, Madam President, your experience in the devastating earthquake 
now, and the realization that costs are going to continue to come in as 
a consequence of that earthquake, and the ultimate figure is obviously 
in excess of $5 billion. It may be closer to $7 billion or $8 billion.
  Since 1989, Congress has spent some $17 billion in emergency relief. 
In 1993, there was $5.1 billion for the Midwest flood; in 1992, $5.4 
billion for Hurricane Andrew. Then we had other disasters associated at 
that time. In 1991, we had $943 million for Hurricane Bob; 1990, $2.6 
billion for another California earthquake; 1989, $2.8 billion for 
Hurricane Hugo.
  Emergency spending adds to the deficit. It simply has to because it 
is not budgeted, and there is no identifiable way to pay for it other 
than a supplemental. We know that the House has just passed an $8.6 
billion relief bill. It is my understanding that they have only paid 
for $2.6 billion.
  So I think the question before us here is should Congress create a 
responsible supplemental trust fund? That is what this is. This is a 
checkoff fund where the taxpayer has the alternative of checking off 
for disaster relief the $3 rather than just having the choice to check 
off for public funding of Presidential elections. This disaster relief 
checkoff would make funds available to go to a supplemental disaster 
trust fund that Congress would appropriate from when regularly budgeted 
FEMA disaster funds are exhausted. The trust fund would be utilized to 
the extent that it was available, then you would call upon the 
necessity of a supplemental.
  Congress could not cut regularly budgeted FEMA disaster funds to 
offset funds held in the trust. If the budget caps were lowered by the 
amount dedicated to the trust fund, this would reduce the deficit. 
Those fortunate years when we do not have a disaster, the deficit would 
be reduced because the money is being saved instead of spent.
  So we would be building up a reserve, Madam President. It also 
reduces the deficit in years that the fund is used because Congress 
would not appropriate as much outside the budget and not offset by 
cuts.
  Regarding the potential funds to be raised, it is interesting to note 
that in 1976, 26 percent of the Americans responded to the income tax 
checkoff for funding Presidential campaigns. In 1976, 26 percent of the 
people responded. But last year, only 17 percent responded. That is 
less than 1 in 5. So clearly public acceptance of Federal funding for 
Presidential elections is declining.
  Last year, about $30 million was raised at the $1 on the checkoff 
portion. Our figures indicate that it is very likely that a $3 checkoff 
with 60 to 70 percent of the Nation responding because of the 
realization that we want to, and we have to help each other out, that 
we are looking at a potential there of about $200 million.
  How would the checkoff affect the deficit? Appropriators have funded 
the disaster relief fund based on a 10-year average that FEMA claims it 
has spent on disaster relief. Well, as a consequence, Madam President, 
we have seen the entire Nation hit with disasters nationwide. My State 
of Alaska has been hit in recent years as well. We have talked about 
the California earthquake and the Mississippi floods, and on and on and 
on. As a consequence, in the last 5 years, we have spent $17 billion 
over and above what we planned for in emergency spending.
  Because disaster spending leads to emergency spending outside of the 
budget caps, it is unique. Further, funding natural disasters has to be 
one of the highest priorities, and it is certainly higher than funding 
political conventions and campaigns at a Presidential level.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield to my friend from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. First, I commend my friend from Alaska for his 
excellent amendment. As the Senator from Alaska knows, I have at 
various times over the last few years sought to abolish this fund 
altogether. I think the Senator's amendment is right on the mark. It is 
about priorities, about setting priorities.
  I heard the Senator from Alaska point out the minuscule percentage of 
Americans who choose to participate in this checkoff, and I commend the 
Senator from Alaska. He is right on the mark. As a matter of fact, this 
is one of the few issues--some would argue the only issue--in America 
where we have a total and complete annual poll. Every April 15, 
American citizens get to decide whether they want to spend a dollar of 
taxes they already owe--that they already owe--to this fund. And the 
participation, as my friend pointed out, has dropped from 26 to 17 
percent.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. To 17 percent; yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So we have a complete annual poll on the subject of 
spending tax dollars for political campaigns. The American people 
themselves get to choose to participate, and the support is dropping 
dramatically, to the point where last year, the majority around here 
raised the checkoff to $3 to make up for the diminishing participation. 
They did it in a legislative fashion that made it virtually impossible 
for anybody to try to extricate that.
  So what do you do? If you have a problem you like, and public support 
is dropping, you increase the checkoff to $3. That is what happened 
last year.
  I just wanted to interject and commend my friend for his amendment, 
which is about priorities. Maybe the American people would rather spend 
their money--we think we know the answer to this already, because we 
have a complete survey every April 15--maybe they would like to spend 
their money on something more worthwhile, like disaster. I think it is 
an excellent amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. In response to my friend from Kentucky, who has worked 
so hard to bring the issue of Federal funding before this body from 
time to time, and recognizing the political realities associated with 
how various people feel about the issue, and the potential threat that 
the funding of elections may, in the minds of some, go far beyond the 
Presidential aspect, I think it would be very interesting to see the 
response of the public if they did have a choice to provide for the 
disaster relief or Presidential elections.
  I cannot help but think that a large majority would be moved simply 
from a humanitarian aspect. I wonder if my friend from Kentucky would 
agree.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Alaska that he is absolutely 
right. It occurs to this Senator, given the lack of interest among the 
public, 83 percent choosing not to check off a dollar they already owe, 
that it would be interesting to contemplate what the American people 
might do on this checkoff if it added a dollar to their tax bill, 
rather than simply diverting a dollar of taxes they already owe; if the 
question on the 1040 were rephrased so that the taxpayer could, out of 
his generosity, add a dollar to his tax bill to pay for Presidential 
political campaigns. My suspicion is that it would produce almost no 
taxpayers.
  My friend from Alaska is talking about priorities. I gather what his 
amendment is about is giving people a chance to designate money for 
something they think is really worthwhile. We know they think the 
Presidential election is not worthwhile. We know that from the survey 
every April 15.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator has made the point, and we are not simply 
fishing with figures. It represents a substantial decline in the public 
willingness to go ahead and check off for contributions for Federal 
funding for Presidential elections.
  If there are any two public priorities today, I think one is the 
obligation we have to help those that suffered from the disaster in 
California, because that can happen in any of our States. The other 
priority is, if you will, the concern over the increasing deficit and 
the fact that we have to address these disasters by a supplemental. 
This would provide a contribution to a worthwhile fund which would 
ultimately contribute to reducing the deficit.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska still has the floor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I would like to ask a question.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I will be happy to respond.
  Mr. PRYOR. May I ask the distinguished Senator from Alaska, should 
his amendment prevail, would we at this time on this evening be 
expressing the sense of the Senate that the Presidential checkoff 
should be done away with?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I can respond to my friend, what we are doing in 
the sense of the Senate is specifically addressing the desire of the 
Senate to remove, if you will, the current system, which mandates the 
checkoff list that is on your individual tax return, which is now 
limited to a Presidential election. That would be removed, and it would 
be the sense of the Senate that on the 1040 form the alternative for 
the taxpayer would be either to check yes or no for $3 to go to a 
Federal disaster relief assistance fund.
  Mr. PRYOR. I wonder if the Senator might accept an amendment where we 
could have a checkoff, say, to fight crime, yes or no; or the next one 
would be environmental cleanup, yes or no. How are we going to stop the 
endless number of checkoffs?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is quite correct. We could go through any 
number of items, just as we have come up with the decision some time 
ago to have a checkoff for Presidential election campaigns, which was a 
decision made by a legislative body, put on, and the taxpayer is faced 
with the reality of saying yes or no. That was a decision that was 
made, and clearly the American public has found that they are not 
supporting that in numbers, as indicated by the fact that 26 percent of 
the public in 1976 checked off the contribution for Presidential 
campaigns, and now that figure is down to 17 percent.
  So, clearly, it is not an issue that is rising in favor. Maybe it 
ought to be looked at. The Senator from Alaska proposes this by the 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It would be the sense of the Senate to 
basically substitute this. I think it is meritorious based on the lack 
of public support for Presidential election campaigns, as evidenced by 
the fact that the percentages have dropped dramatically from 26 to 17 
percent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Murkowski amendment is about 
priorities. I am no fan of the taxpayer-funded Presidential campaign 
system and have for years proposed abolishing it outright. I will soon 
be introducing legislation to do just that--abolish taxpayer funded 
Presidential campaigns.
  But that is not what this effort by Senator Murkowski is about. The 
Murkowski amendment is about priorities.
  I have offered amendments in the past which raised the question of 
priorities. Tax dollars for child nutrition or political campaigns? 
Deficit reduction or political campaigns?
  For my colleagues who support using tax dollars to fund political 
campaigns, these amendments were unpleasant. But these amendments 
forcing the Senate to prioritize are necessary. If we are ever to 
achieve a balanced budget, we must make the hard decisions on spending.
  Senator's decision over whether to support the Murkowski amendment 
should not be hard.
  If Senators believe American taxpayers should have the opportunity to 
check off a few dollars of their taxes to go toward helping victims of 
earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes rather than political 
campaigns, then they should support the Murkowski amendment.
  Let me conclude, Madam President, by thanking my friend from 
Kentucky.
  The reality is that we cannot adequately plan in any manner or form 
for disaster costs associated with disasters of a type that we have 
recently seen. Public financing of elections can still occur in the 
appropriations process where, in my opinion, they should. I think this 
kind of alternative to the American people is overdue.
  As a consequence, Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1440

  Mr. REID. The proposed rescission of 7.5 percent from the enacted 
level for fiscal 1994, if confined to the agencies funded in the 
legislative branch appropriations bill, would total $172.7 million. 
This reduction, which would be in addition to those already imposed on 
the legislative branch for fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994, would be 
devastating to the Congress, its support agencies, and the other 
institutions of the legislative branch.
  The Kerrey and others plan also calls for a freeze in so-called 
overhead expenditures--rent, communications, printing, and supplies, a 
15 percent reduction in all travel accounts in the legislative branch 
and a 5 percent pay cut for Members of Congress and senior executive 
and congressional officials.
  The combined impact of these proposals would place the constitutional 
independence and authority of the Congress in serious jeopardy. Nowhere 
is the maxim, ``knowledge is power'' more valid than in the legislative 
process of today. The policy environment we face daily is characterized 
by great complexity, interdependence, and rapid change. This makes 
reliable knowledge and analysis absolutely indispensable. The functions 
of the institutions making up the legislative branch--with minor 
exceptions--focus on meeting this requirement.
  Draconian, meat ax cuts of the sort envisioned in the Kerrey plan 
cannot eliminate this requirement. They will however change the way it 
is satisfied to the detriment of the independence of congressional 
decisionmaking. Decimation of the staffing resources within the 
legislative branch will force the Congress to depend more and more on 
either the executive branch or interest groups for information and 
analysis.


      legislative branch funds and staff are already being reduced

  This is not to say that efficiencies cannot be realized or that 
reductions in legislative branch personnel are not possible. In fact we 
are already well along in a considered process streamlining and 
rationalizing the agencies of the legislative branch.
  According to CBO baseline analysis, the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1994--Public Law 103-69--funds the 
Congress and associated agencies at a level that is, in the aggregate, 
$308,4 million or 12 percent less than program level of fiscal year 
1992. In order words, Mr. President, the real level of program activity 
and staffing in the legislative branch has already declined 
significantly from the levels of over two years ago.


                          library of congress

  Let me just give you a few examples of what this contraction has mean 
already. In fiscal 1992 the Library of Congress was operating with 
4,748 full time equivalent staffing. This year the Library's full time 
equivalent workforce is 4,531, a reduction 227. The effects are already 
being felt. The hours of operation for seven reading rooms have been 
reduced by 12 percent and a number of reading rooms are now closed on 
Sunday. In addition, there will be delays in replacement of aging 
machines that provide free reading services to the blind and physically 
handicapped.
  An additional 7.5 percent cut as envisioned in this proposal would 
delay production of bibliographic records for some 28,000 books and 
serials and 550,000 other library items would be added to the arrearage 
of uncataloged materials. As a consequence, other libraries across the 
country will be forced at their own expense to undertake the task of 
cataloging these materials with attendant duplication of effort and 
waste.
  The arrearage of uncataloged materials, totaling 27 million items, 
would begin to grow after 3 straight years of decline. Reading room 
service would be further cut by reducing general reading room hours 
from 68 to 40 hours per week, and last week the Library of Congress 
announced the closure of reading rooms on Sundays--a 40 percent 
decrease. The Copyright Office will furlough all staff for 56 days. And 
the blind and physically handicapped program would eliminate the 
production of 260 new braille and audio book titles.


                       general accounting office

  In fiscal year 1992 the General Accounting Office had an authorized 
complement of 5,062 full time equivalent permanent positions. This year 
the GAO's full time equivalent work force is 4,581, a reduction of 481 
staff. An additional 7.5 percent cut would require a furlough of its 
entire staff for over 30 days or a reduction-in-force of over 1,000 
people. Such drastic action would in effect paralyze GAO for most of 
the fiscal year.
  It would also require that GAO discontinue its asbestos abatement 
project. To terminate the project at this time would mean that GAO 
would need to continue to spend $12 million a year to lease space for 
employees who could otherwise occupy the main GAO building. Obviously, 
the sooner this project is completed the more money the taxpayer can 
save.
  In addition, GAO has made considerable progress in implementing a 
local area network which will significantly increase the efficiency of 
agency operations. Budget reductions have already forced the delay of 
the roll out of the wide area network. A reduction of this magnitude 
would stop the program indefinitely. Since GAO is reducing its 
workforce, it is even more important for the remaining staff to have 
the advantages of this technology in performing their work.


                      congressional budget office

  In fiscal year 1992 the Congressional Budget Office was operating 
with 226 full time equivalent staff. This year the CBO's full time 
equivalent staffing is 220. The effects on the operations of the CBO 
have already been felt. On October 1, 1993, CBO laid off all their 
temporary employees. CBO has also ended its semester and summer intern 
programs. These programs have annually employed about 30 undergraduate 
and postgraduate students from all over the United States, giving them 
a valuable learning experience. In return, these students work on 
useful research products usually involving the collection and analysis 
of data and are a resource for future recruiting.
  An additional 7.5 percent cut would require a reduction-in-force of 
35 current staff members by March 1, 1994, significantly reduce 
analytical capability in major policy areas such as health and defense 
and end support to members in the drafting phase of legislation with 
budgetary impact.


                        architect of the capitol

  In fiscal year 1992 the Architect of the Capitol was operating with 
2,407 full time equivalent staff. This year the Architect is operating 
with 2,347 full time equivalent staff, a reduction of 60 staff years. 
In addition, it has been necessary for the Architect to defer a number 
of important maintenance, renovation, and improvement projects. For 
example, installation of a Capitol complex wide fire signaling system 
has been postponed as have roof repairs to the Russell and Dirksen 
Senate Office Buildings. Last year it was necessary, for safety 
reasons, to dismantle the palm house at the Botanic Garden. Restoration 
of that structure and the general renovation of the Botanic Garden has 
been indefinitely deferred.
  An additional 7.5 percent cut would require a further reduction of 
177 full time equivalent staff. Projects that would be deferred or 
curtailed would include: construction necessary to meet the 
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; modernization of 
the electrical system in the Cannon and Russell Buildings; and 
replacement of the boilers at the Capitol powerplant.


                             capitol police

  In fiscal year 1992 the Capitol Police were operating with 1,357 
full-time equivalent staff. This year the Capitol Police are operating 
with 1,298 full-time equivalent staff. A 7.5-percent cut would mean the 
abolishment of an additional 120 police positions. This reduction would 
curtail street patrols, degrade the level of security within the 
Capitol complex, and require the closure of some building entrances.


                                 senate

  The contraction in resources over the last 3 fiscal years has also 
had an impact on the Senate. In fact, funding for the Senate as a whole 
has been reduced in actual dollars for 2 years running. As a result, 
the Senate is operating at a level of funding that is $74 million below 
its 1992 baseline level.


                               committees

  The committee funding resolution for the current biennium reduced 
committee budgets by approximately 10 percent. So, Senate committees 
are already under pressure to reduce their operating costs in the face 
of the growing workload associated with the President's ambitious 
legislative agenda. Fully funding the committee budgets in the 
committee funding resolution, with this 10-percent reduction, would 
still require a total of $81.5 million. This amendment would reduce the 
inquiries and investigations appropriation to $71.2 million, leaving a 
shortfall of $10.3 million. This will almost certainly force a severe 
retrenchment in committee budgets. If there are committee chairmen who 
believe their committees are overstaffed or overfunded, they should 
come to the floor now and say so. If not, they should come here and 
oppose this amendment.


                 office of the secretary of the senate

  The Office of the Secretary of the Senate is one of the principal 
administrative organizations of the Senate as an institution. It 
provides essential legislative support services as well as performing 
basic financial management functions. It includes, for example, the 
Senate Parliamentarians, the legislative clerks, the bill clerks, 
executive clerks, and Official Reporters of Debates, the Senate 
disbursing office, the Senate library, and the Office of Public 
Records.
  A 7.5-percent reduction in the salaries appropriation for the Office 
of the Secretary would force the following reductions, among others, in 
service to the Senate and the general public:
  First, the legislative staff would be reduced by 10 positions. This 
would impair the Senate's ability to process and print legislation and 
produce the Congressional Record and other official publications.
  Second, captioning of Senate Chamber proceedings would be degraded if 
not eliminated and captioning of other official Senate activities would 
not be possible.
  Third, the project to modernize the management of the Senate's 
finances, known as Financial Management System II, would be eliminated. 
The result would be processing and paying Members' official expenses.
  Fourth, new programs to reduce the Senate's printing costs, such as 
utilizing print-on-demand technology, would be eliminated.
  Fifth, Senate Page School would be in jeopardy.


                            sergeant at arms

  The Office of the Sergeant at Arms provides administrative, 
logistical, and related support services to Members, the leadership, 
and committee offices. A 7.5-percent reduction in the appropriations 
for the Sergeant at Arms would force the following reductions, among 
others, in service to the Senate:
  First, elimination of some State offices.
  Second, reduction in the level of support functions provided. For 
example: operations at the recording studios would be cut in half, 
elevator operators would be eliminated, and the post office operations 
would be severely curtailed, if not eliminated.
  Third, delay in the deployment of new State office computer systems.


        senators' official personnel and office expenses account

  In general, the precise effect of these reductions on staffing levels 
is hard to access in the Senate, because Senate organizations do not 
typically operate with schedules of authorized positions. But one thing 
is clear. An additional 7.5-percent reduction in the appropriation for 
the Senators' official personnel and office account cannot be made 
without a comparable reduction in the allocations for clerk hire, 
legislative assistants, and administrative expenses that this 
appropriation funds.
  This is a point that deserves some elaboration. It is important to 
understand--as not many people in this Chamber and elsewhere do--that 
the allocation for a Senator's office is separate and independent of 
the appropriation that pays the costs of these allocations for all 
Senators. This means Mr. President, that reducing the appropriation for 
Senator's office accounts does not in itself reduce the allocations 
under which Senators are entitled to incur costs. What this will do, 
absent a corresponding reduction in the allocation will subject the 
Secretary of the Senate and the financial clerk of the Senate to 
possible penalties under the Antideficiency Act.

  A 7.5-percent reduction in the appropriation for the Senators account 
would leave a total of $168.5 million. The full cost of the allocations 
for Senators' offices, however, is $210 million. If this amendment is 
adopted, the short-fall in funding of the allocation would be $32.5 
million. Moreover, this comes at a point that is almost half way 
through the fiscal year. So, any reduction in Senators' allocations 
made necessary by this amendment will certainly exceed 7.5 percent. In 
fact, the cut in Senators allocations would probably approximate 15 
percent.
  Given the uncertainty of the consequences of such a reduction for 
Senators' offices, I think it only fair that the proponents of this 
amendment demonstrate their good faith by cutting their own accounts 
first. After all, the principal sponsor of this plan, the junior 
Senator from Nebraska, is quoted in Roll Call as saying:

       ``This plan begins with the premise that we should not ask 
     the American people to accept spending cuts unless we are 
     first willing to make sacrifices ourselves.''

  It should also be pointed out that the fiscal 1994 act contains a 
provision--section 307--which requires an FTE reduction of 4 percent in 
the legislative branch by the end of fiscal year 1995. This is 
equivalent to the executive branch reduction announced by the President 
and endorsed by the joint leadership of the Congress for the 
legislative branch. A companion provision--section 308--mandates an 
administrative cost reduction of 14 percent by fiscal year 1997 for the 
agencies of the legislative branch. These two provisions will result in 
a reduction of over 900 FTE's, and a combined cost savings of over $40 
million.
  Finally, the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress 
submitted a series of recommendations relating to the Senate and 
legislative branch wide matters. One of the proposals included in that 
package is a comprehensive performance review of the legislative branch 
patterned after the National Performance Review conducted under the 
leadership of Vice President Gore. The objective of this provision is 
to establish a process for achieving further efficiencies and 
economies, including organizational realignments and personnel 
reductions. This in my judgment is a far more rational approach and is 
likely to have far more practical results than an arbitrary, pick it 
out of the air, 7.5 percent rescission from the fiscal 1994 enacted 
level for the legislative branch.


                   30 percent reduction in the frank

  The fiscal 1994 legislative appropriations bill provides $20 million 
for the costs of franked mail in the Senate. This is a reduction of $16 
million from the budget request. The requested amount is the amount 
necessary to cover the costs of one statewide mailing for each Senator, 
routine response mail, and mail costs of committees and officers of the 
Senate. So mass mailings to every address in a Senator's State are, by 
and large, a thing of the past.
  Mail, of course, is a valuable channel of communication with our 
constituents. And many of us use it to maintain contact with the people 
who elected us beyond merely responding to particular individual 
letters we may receive. We often know a number of people or groups in 
our respective States who have an interest in developments relating to 
particular issues. Many of us find it useful to use the mail to keep 
these people informed in their areas of interest. Reductions in our 
franking allowance, of course, make it more and more difficult to 
maintain these channels of communication.
  A 30-percent reduction in the franking appropriation for the Senate 
would be $6 million. It is hard to generalize about the impact of such 
a cut but it is safe to say that there would be some negative effect on 
the flow of communication between Senators and their constituents. I 
have here a table displaying the allocation of this reduction by State 
and ask that it be inserted in the Record. Senators can make their own 
judgment as to the wisdom of a further reduction in their mailing 
allowance.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Departing Members' Purchase of Office Equipment and Furnishings From 
                            District Offices

       This provision is not applicable to the Senate, because 
     such purchases are not permitted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    E                           
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                 No. of                                            Rescission   
         State                  Senator           CDs       Full Funding     Current Approp.       $6,000,000   
                                                               Total          of $20,000,000       Approp. of   
                                                                                                  $14,000,000   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...............  Heflin................        7            282,555            152,651            107,659
                        Shelby................        7            282,555            152,651            107,659
Alaska................  Murkowski.............        1             77,184             41,699             29,409
                        Stevens...............        1             77,184             41,699             29,409
Arizona...............  DeConcini.............        6            276,604            149,437            105,392
                        McCain................        6            276,604            149,437            105,392
Arkansas..............  Bumpers...............        4            163,234             88,188             62,196
                        Pryor.................        4            163,234             88,188             62,196
California............  Boxer.................       52          1,962,726          1,060,371            747,841
                        Feinstein.............       52          1,962,726          1,060,371            747,841
Colorado..............  Brown.................        6            246,834            133,353             94,049
                        Campbell..............        6            246,834            133,353             94,049
Connecticut...........  Dodd..................        6            223,492            120,743             85,155
                        Lieberman.............        6            223,492            120,743             85,155
Delaware..............  Biden.................        1             97,178             52,501             37,027
                        Roth..................        1             97,178             52,501             37,027
Florida...............  Graham................       23          1,079,970            583,458            411,492
                        Mack..................       23          1,079,970            583,458            411,492
Georgia...............  Coverdell.............       11            465,554            251,518            177,386
                        Nunn..................       11            465,554            251,518            177,386
Hawaii................  Akaka.................        2             99,155             53,569             37,780
                        Inouye................        2             99,155             53,569             37,780
Idaho.................  Craig.................        2            105,200             56,835             40,083
                        Kempthorne............        2            105,200             56,835             40,083
Illinois..............  Moseley-Braun.........       20            736,277            397,777            280,537
                        Simon.................       20            736,277            397,777            280,537
Indiana...............  Coats.................       10            374,259            202,195            142,501
                        Lugar.................       10            374,259            202,195            142,501
Iowa..................  Grassley..............        5            186,301            100,650             70,985
                        Harkin................        5            186,301            100,650             70,985
Kansas................  Dole..................        4            175,092             94,594             66,714
                        Kassebaum.............        4            175,092             94,594             66,714
Kentucky..............  Ford..................        6            247,012            133,449             94,117
                        McConnell.............        6            247,012            133,449             94,117
Louisiana.............  Breaux................        7            285,562            154,276            108,805
                        Johnston..............        7            285,562            154,276            108,805
Maine.................  Cohen.................        2            127,405             68,831             48,544
                        Mitchell..............        2            127,405             68,831             48,544
Maryland..............  Mikulski..............        8            322,235            174,089            122,778
                        Sarbanes..............        8            322,235            174,089            122,778
Massachusetts.........  Kennedy...............       10            408,907            220,914            155,802
                        Kerry.................       10            408,907            220,914            155,802
Michigan..............  Levin.................       16            618,973            334,403            235,842
                        Riegle................       16            618,973            334,403            235,842
Minnesota.............  Durenberger...........        8            294,822            159,279            112,333
                        Wellstone.............        8            294,822            159,279            112,333
Mississippi...........  Cochran...............        5            166,632             90,024             63,491
                        Lott..................        5            166,632             90,024             63,491
Missouri..............  Bond..................        9            359,472            194,206            136.966
                        Danforth..............        9            359,472            194,206            136.966
Montana...............  Baucus................        1            114,874             62,061             43,770
                        Burns.................        1            114,874             62,061             43,770
Nebraska..............  Exon..................        3            105,679             57,093             40,266
                        Kerrey................        3            105,679             57,093             40,266
Nevada................  Bryan.................        2            145,593             78,657             55,474
                        Reid..................        2            145,593             78,657             55,474
New Hampshire.........  Gregg.................        2            117,226             63,332             44,666
                        Smith.................        2            117,226             63,332             44,666
New Jersey............  Bradley...............       13            519,195            280,498            197,825
                        Lautenberg............       13            519,195            280,498            197,825
New Mexico............  Bingaman..............        3            101,683             54,935             38,743
                        Domenici..............        3            101,683             54,935             38,743
New York..............  D'Amato...............       31          1,128,369            609,606            429,933
                        Moynihan..............       31          1,128,369            609,606            429,933
North Carolina........  Helms.................       12            476,456            257,408            181,540
                        Faircloth.............       12            476,456            257,408            181,540
North Dakota..........  Conrad................        1             85,228             46,045             32,474
                        Dorgan................        1             85,228             46,045             32,474
Ohio..................  Glenn.................       19            732,479            395,725            279.090
                        Metzenbaum............       19            732,479            395,725            279.090
Oklahoma..............  Boren.................        6            233,914            126,373             89,126
                        Nickles...............        6            233,914            126,373             89,126
Oregon................  Hatfield..............        5            205,805            111,187             78,416
                        Packwood..............        5            205,805            111,187             78,416
Pennsylvania..........  Specter...............       21            808,740            436,926            308,148
                        Wofford...............       21            808,740            436,926            308,148
Rhode Island..........  Chafee................        2            104,089             56,235             39,660
                        Pell..................        2            104,089             56,235             39,660
South Carolina........  Hollings..............        6            241,338            130,384             91,955
                        Thurmond..............        6            241,338            130,384             91,955
South Dakota..........  Daschle...............        1             91,396             49,377             34,824
                        Pressler..............        1             91,396             49,377             34,824
Tennessee.............  Mathews...............        9            338,254            182,743            128,882
                        Sasser................        9            338,254            182,743            128,882
Texas.................  Hutchison.............       30          1,184,605            639,988            451,360
                        Gramm.................       30          1,184,605            639,988            451,360
Utah..................  Bennett...............        3            102,868             55,575             39,195
                        Hatch.................        3            102,868             55,575             39,195
Vermont...............  Jeffords..............        1             79,068             42,717             30,127
                        Leahy.................        1             79,068             42,717             30,127
Virginia..............  Robb..................       11            413,699            223,503            157,628
                        Warner................       11            413,699            223,503            157,628
Washington............  Murray................        9            354,038            191,270            134,896
                        Gorton................        9            354,038            191,270            134,896
West Virginia.........  Byrd..................        3            122,205             66,022             46,563
                        Rockefeller...........        3            122,205             66,022             46,563
Wisconsin.............  Feingold..............        9            326,902            176,610            124,557
                        Kohl..................        9            326,902            176,610            124,557
Wyoming...............  Simpson...............        1             67,971             36,721             25,898
                        Wallop................        1             67,971             36,721             25,898
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I am very disappointed that the Kerrey 
amendment proposes closing the Uniformed Services University of the 
Health Sciences [USUHS] in Bethesda. This outstanding facility is an 
integral part of our efforts to provide top-quality medical care to the 
men and women of our armed services.
  I want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Inouye, for his 
comments earlier today in support of this fine institution. I commend 
him for his longstanding support which has been crucial to the success 
of the university. Last November, I wrote to Senator Inouye to outline 
my own views on the Uniformed Services University and I ask unanimous 
consent that my letter be made a part of the Record following my 
remarks.
  Madam President, a close review of the facts clearly supports the 
continued operation of this respected facility.
  The Senate wisely reversed a similar effort in 1990 when the House of 
Representatives voted to phase out funding for UHUHS. In my view, there 
continues to be a very strong case for maintaining this capability 
within the Department of Defense. I urge my colleagues to preserve 
funding for this vital part of the Department of Defense.
  Since it was founded in 1972, USUHS has graduated more than 1,800 
regular medical officers--97 percent of whom are serving today in the 
Air Force, the Army, the Navy, or the Public Health Service. Even among 
those who have completed their required commitment of 7 years beyond 
internships and residencies and could leave for private practice, 89 
percent continue to serve our Nation.
  Madam President, that is a remarkable statistic. USUHS attracts and 
graduates students that have an incredible sense of commitment to 
public service. In fact, about 40 percent have some prior military 
service. Unlike some of their colleagues in other medical schools, the 
typical USUHS student wants to become a public servant and will likely 
serve far longer than his or her required commitment.
  Madam President, USUHS provides training in military medicine, 
disaster medicine, preventive medicine, tropical medicine, and on 
survival in extreme environments. I question whether or not any other 
medical school in the country could or would assume the critical role 
of teaching these specialities that are so important to our men and 
women in uniform.
  Let me turn for a moment to the cost of educating doctors at USUHS. 
When you consider years of service provided and the Federal dollars 
that go to medical schools across our Nation, it becomes very clear 
that sending a young man or woman through USUHS is no more expensive 
than providing them with a Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship.
  Many of the physicians needed by the services can be recruited 
through the Scholarship Program. However, USUHS allows us to develop a 
group of physician-leaders who are highly educated in military medical 
issues.
  As I said in my November 19 letter, the Uniformed Services University 
serves our Nation by providing medical officers who excel in military 
medicine and public health during times of both peace and war. Closure 
of the university does not make sense from an economic or policy 
perspective.
  Madam President, I urge the Senate to follow the wise advice of the 
distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and 
retain the Uniform Services University of the Health Sciences.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, November 19, 1993.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my strong 
     opposition to pending proposals to close the Uniformed 
     Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This 
     respected facility plays a critical role in training doctors 
     in military medicine, a specialty not available at any other 
     medical school in the United States.
       The University is named the F. Edward Herbert School of 
     Medicine in honor of our former Colleague whose vision led to 
     its establishment in 1972. Since that time, it has graduated 
     1,836 regular medical officers who are required to serve 
     seven years of active duty beyond the time they devote to 
     internships and residencies. Of all graduates, 97 percent are 
     serving today in the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, or the 
     Public Health Service. Even more incredible is the fact that, 
     of those who have completed their required commitment and 
     could leave for private practice, 89 percent continue to 
     serve our Nation.
       These statistics reflect the high level of commitment that 
     is characteristic of USUHS students. Approximately 50 percent 
     of applicants have some type of prior military experience. 
     After four years at the Bethesda campus, a remarkable 43 
     percent of graduates have chosen primary care in lieu of 
     assignments considered more desirable by most medical school 
     graduates. The number of students pursuing specialized 
     degrees such as Master's degrees in public health and 
     tropical medicine is further evidence that these students are 
     interested in long-term service to our Nation.
       In addition to military medicine, the curriculum at USUHS 
     includes a heavy emphasis on disaster medicine, tropical 
     medicine, preventive medicine, and on survival in extreme 
     environments. It is imperative that our Armed Services have 
     men and women trained in these specialty areas. In their 
     fourth year, all students also complete advanced trauma life 
     support, advanced cardiac life support, and a major field 
     exercise. These additional requirements are one reason why 
     the USUHS curriculum is about 25 weeks longer than that of 
     the typical medical school. It is this important training 
     that prepares USUHS graduates to be the leaders of the 
     military health corps and the Public Health Service.
       While the majority of physicians needed by the services can 
     be recruited through the Armed Forces Health Professions 
     Scholarship Program, USUHS provides, at a reasonable cost, a 
     cadre of physician-leaders who are highly-educated in 
     military medical issues. Based on data in the ``Journal of 
     the American Medical Association,'' USUHS graduates cost the 
     government no more than doctors recruited through the 
     scholarship program. I understand that the Federal government 
     spends $98,396 on a scholarship program student for each year 
     of obligated services. In comparison, USUHS students received 
     an equal or better level of education for $66,212 per year of 
     obligated service.
       Estimates released on November 15th by the Congressional 
     Budget Office suggest that the potential savings from closing 
     the University are greatly overstated. Instead of the $350 
     million listed in the ``National Performance Review'' 
     proposal, CBO estimates that five-year savings would total 
     about $100 million. Even if other medical schools could and 
     would assume the task of providing the specialized education 
     now available through USUHS, there are serious questions 
     about whether or not any savings would be achieved in the 
     longrun.
       Complementing the University's emphasis on training doctors 
     is an extensive program to provide specialized medical 
     support training to law enforcement officers, firefighters, 
     and rescue personnel. These programs have been successfully 
     run with Federal, state, and local governments across the 
     country. USUHS medical expertise has proved important at 
     several recent crises including the riots in Los Angeles and 
     the tragedy at Waco, Texas. The University's Counter 
     Narcotics Tactical Operations Medical Support program has 
     provided medical support training to over 1,000 personnel and 
     is widely regarded as a National standards for tactical 
     emergency services. At the same time, USUHS is an accredited 
     sponsor of a number of continuing medical education programs, 
     including those required for Department of Defense physicians 
     deployed overseas.
       The Uniformed Services University serves our Nation by 
     providing medical officers who excel in military medicine and 
     public health during times of both peace and war. I am 
     concerned that elimination of the University would be a step 
     backwards in the quality of care offered to our armed 
     services. Algeria, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, 
     Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, 
     Pakistan, the People's Republic of China, Poland, Russia, 
     South Africa, Taiwan, and Turkey all recognize this need and 
     operate government-run military medical schools.
       As you may be aware, the Association of American Medical 
     Colleges recently expressed its strong support for the unique 
     role that the Uniformed Services University fulfills in our 
     medical education system. In my view, there is a continuing 
     role for USUHS even in a changing defense landscape.
       Your strong past support for USUHS is very much appreciated 
     and I urge you to again reject any proposals that come before 
     the Committee to downsize or close this outstanding facility.
       With best regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                 Paul S. Sarbanes,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. PELL. Madam President, the Kerrey-Brown amendment is indeed 
laudable in its intent, whether it would indeed save $94 billion, as 
its proponents assert, or a lesser amount as the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia suggests.
  All of us want to save and all of us want to reduce the deficit, but 
this amendment, I submit, does not seem to proceed from a consistent 
basis of selectivity. Rather, it takes a scatter shot swipe at what 
appears to be a random collection of Federal programs without regard to 
merit or special circumstances.
  For example:
  It would, in my view, place an inordinate and unfair burden on the 
elderly, who already are on notice that they probably will have to 
share the burden of health care reform. The Kerrey-Brown amendment 
would require 20 percent coinsurance on Medicare lab services and 10 
percent coinsurance on home health service for those below 150 percent 
of poverty level, which together would raise $30 billion--or 28 percent 
of the total savings--on the backs of the elderly.
  It would prohibit Pell grants to prisoners, notwithstanding the fact 
that such grants are a major force for constructive rehabilitation of 
prisoners, at a time when we are trying to pursue all possible avenues 
for combatting crime.
  It would cut funding for the Economic Development Administration by 
10 percent--just as EDA is becoming a key component of the defense 
adjustment effort.
  I would impose a 1 year freeze on funding the Defense Environmental 
Restoration Program--at a time when that program is most needed to 
accommodate base closures.
  It would eliminate development of a Mag-Lev prototype at a time when 
we need to press forward with innovative concepts to promote mobility 
in megalopolitan areas and to do so with maximum sensitivity to 
environmental concerns.
  It would provide for only partial consolidation of overseas 
broadcasting, undercutting the consolidation plan just approved by the 
Senate when it passed the State Department Authorization Bill.
  These are a few of the many provisions of the Kerrey-Brown amendment 
which I find to be arbitrary and ill-considered.
  As for the second degree amendment introduced by Mr. Hatfield, I must 
say that I find his approach also to be arbitrary. While I share his 
belief that we could well cut defense spending even further, I believe 
we should do so on a more selective basis. I especially believe that it 
is imperative that we preserve unique and vital skills found in areas 
like the submarine industrial base.
  For all of these reasons, Madam President, I support the motion to 
table the Kerrey-Brown amendment and the second degree Hatfield 
amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join Senator Kerrey and 
others in offering this amendment.
  This amendment is the result of a long process that began last year 
when a bipartisan group of Senators met to develop a list of 
significant spending cuts.
  Many of us felt that the deficit reduction plan passed last year 
relied too heavily on tax increases rather than on spending cuts to 
meet its goals. History has shown that, without strict limits on 
spending, tax increases will simply go to new spending rather than to 
reduce the deficit.
  In early September, a number of Senators, led by Senator Kerrey, 
began discussions about how to craft a list of spending cuts that was 
substantial enough to have a real impact on the deficit and balanced 
enough to have political support in the Congress. A similar effort, led 
by Congressman Penny and Congressman Kasich, was underway in the House 
of Representatives.
  While there are some important differences between the Kerrey-Brown 
plan and the Penny-Kasich plan in the House, both efforts grew out of 
the strong conviction that spending cuts must lead the way in reducing 
the deficit. Unfortunately, the House defeated the Penny-Kasich plan in 
October. The closeness of that vote, however, confirmed our view that 
now is the time for serious deficit reduction.
  The list of about $100 billion cuts proposed in the Kerrey-Brown plan 
was not easy to craft. Many tough decisions were made in developing 
this list. Indeed, I do not support each and every cut proposed in this 
package. Taken together, however, I think it represents a fair and 
balanced approach to deficit reduction. If each Senator took from the 
list each cut he did not support, there would probably be little left 
to cut. Accordingly, we agreed to stand together in supporting cuts 
that, on their own, we may very well oppose.
  And, it would be misleading to suggest that serious deficit reduction 
could be accomplished without taking some unpopular steps. Indeed, 
aversion to unpopular steps has created the fiscal problems this 
country faces. In the 1980's, the American people were told that taxes 
could be cut and spending increased without increasing the deficit. In 
the 1990's, the American people ought not be told that whole new 
entitlements can be created without raising taxes on the middle class 
or worsening the deficit.
  The time for serious deficit reduction is well overdue. There is a 
public willingness to do what needs to be done to reduce the deficit. 
The grassroots support for groups like the Concord Coalition and United 
We Stand demonstrate the strong public sentiments for returning fiscal 
responsibility to the Federal Government.
  We cannot continue to pass a growing national debt on to future 
generations. Every dollar the Federal Government borrows today is a 
dollar our children and grandchildren will have to repay. We should be 
willing to pay for the level of government services we want to consume. 
If today's taxpayers are not willing to pay for these services, the 
extent to which the public really wants this perplexing proliferation 
of government programs is questionable.
  Cutting Federal spending by $100 billion over 5 years will not topple 
the government as some suggest. As the corporate sector discovered 
throughout the 1980's, belt-tightening is not necessarily a bad thing. 
It forces us to focus our efforts and to find ways of meeting these 
objectives in more efficient ways. The time has come for serious 
rethinking of what the Federal Government can and cannot do. I am 
convinced that this process would yield not only lower deficits but 
better government.
  Finally, since the Senate will soon be considering the balanced 
budget amendment, I want to urge all of its supporters to support the 
amendment we are offering today. While I believe the time has come to 
adopt a balanced budget amendment, that amendment in itself will not 
cut a dime of Federal spending. It is merely a procedural tool. The 
amendment being offered today, on the other hand, will cut about $100 
billion over the next 5 years. I strongly urge cosponsors of the 
balanced budget amendment to support the Kerrey-Brown plan.
  I would also like to comment on another aspect of this vote. Senator 
Hatfield has been successful in amending Kerrey-Brown in a fashion 
which seeks to intimidate those who support a strong national defense, 
as I do, into voting against the Kerrey-Brown amendment. The Hatfield 
amendment should be seen for the nefarious tactic that it is. I regret 
that a vote on a serious subject such as restraining government 
spending was clouded by the Hatfield substitute. Serious observers of 
this debate will understand that a bi-partisan group of Senators is 
committed to reducing the deficit through significant spending cuts, 
and that any attempt to portray this vote as a blow against a strong 
national defense would be highly misleading.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I rise to express my opposition to the 
Kerrey-Brown amendment. I commend my colleagues for their concern about 
the federal budget deficit. I oppose their amendment because it does 
little to actually cut that deficit, and because most of the real cuts 
it makes would deprive us of funds needed to combat crime and reform 
our health care system.
  Last year Congress enacted a comprehensive economic recovery plan 
designed to reduce the Federal budget deficit and lay the groundwork 
for economic growth. Today, we see the fruits of that difficult effort. 
There is a new vigor in the economy and the prospects are strong for 
long-term sustained growth. In 1993, 1.6 million private-sector jobs 
were created--more than the previous 4 years combined. Solid economic 
advances were recorded across the board.
  A year ago, the deficit for 1995 was projected at $302 billion. 
Today, the forecast is for $176 billion. In fact, from 1994 through 
1998, there is a 40 percent drop in the projected deficit numbers. 
Measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the 1996 deficit 
falls to 2.3 percent--the lowest share since 1979.
  The proof is in the numbers--the economic plan was enacted struck the 
proper balance between sustained growth and deficit reduction. As Alan 
Greenspan recently said, we currently enjoy the best long-term economic 
outlook anytime in the last two or three decades, a result he termed an 
extraordinary achievement.
  I do not take a back seat to any Member in this body when it comes to 
proposing specific spending cuts. I have helped lead the fight for cuts 
that went beyond the reductions enacted in the economic plan, and I 
intend to support some additional cuts this year. But the Kerrey-Brown 
amendment does little beyond what has already been proposed, and I 
simply cannot support many of the actual additional cuts it does 
include.
  The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has 
already pointed out in detail the false savings claimed by this 
amendment, but let me take a few moments to reinforce his argument. 
According to the Office of Management and Budget, $60 billion--or 64 
percent--of the savings in the Kerrey plan are already in the 1995 
budget. These cuts are needed simply to stay within the existing cap on 
discretionary spending.
  As my colleagues know, Senators Byrd and Mitchell joined with me in 
sponsoring an amendment to the crime bill that uses that roughly $22 
billion in savings gained through the planned reduction in the Federal 
work force of 250,000 to establish the Violent Crime Control Trust 
Fund. That amendment was approved by an overwhelming majority of 94 to 
4. Its supporters included Senators Kerrey and Brown. Their amendment, 
however, seeks to use those savings for deficit reduction. How can 
those who voted for the crime bill amendment vote now to dedicate the 
savings to deficit reduction?
  Senators Kerrey and Brown argue that if the crime bill becomes law, 
its funding provision will supersede this amendment. In the meantime, 
of course, Members who vote for both amendments can go home and 
claim credit both for fighting crime and for cutting spending. Do we 
wonder why the public is cynical about this institution? We took a 
stand to provide a stable, real funding source for more police and more 
prisons. We should not jeopardize that effort by claiming that same 
source of funding for another purpose.

  Madam President, this amendment would go beyond the proposed 250,000 
in Federal job cuts. Its proposed cuts in administrative overhead would 
require--in this year alone--an additional cut of 36,000 jobs. Almost 
one-half of those jobs losses would come in the Defense Department. 
This President has already taken historic steps to make the Federal 
Government more efficient and streamline the bureaucracy. Aiming a meat 
ax at Federal employees will hinder, not help, that effort.
  And this amendment doesn't only eliminate the jobs of current Federal 
employees; it also limits benefits for military and civilian retirees. 
The amendment would go beyond the delay in their cost-of-living 
adjustments enacted as part of the deficit reduction plan and eliminate 
the COLA entirely for certain retirees. Haven't we already asked enough 
of the dedicated military retirees who sacrificed so much for their 
country?
  The Kerrey-Brown amendment also proposes $30 billion in cuts in the 
Medicare program , over and above the substantial reductions included 
in last year's deficit reduction bill. As my colleagues realize, the 
enactment of meaningful and comprehensive health care reform depends in 
part on our ability to capture savings from existing Federal health 
care programs, including Medicare. I have not cosponsored any 
particular health care reform bill, but I am extremely reluctant to 
limit our ability at this time to finance any plan that ultimately 
comes to this floor for consideration.
  I commend the sponsors of this amendment for their effort to identify 
wasteful programs. Taken individually, I would support many of the cuts 
they propose. Many of their proposals have been or will be adopted. I 
invite them to join me in an effort to limit spending for other 
programs. But make no mistake, Madam President, this Congress has 
already taken difficult and meaningful steps to cut spending and reduce 
the deficit. Adoption of this amendment would add little to that 
effort, and it would seriously jeopardize vital legislation to control 
crime and reform our health care system.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, there should be no mistaking my 
opposition to the Hatfield amendment to cut $18 billion out of the 
defense budget.
  One reason I oppose this amendment is because it would cut funding 
for the DDG-51 Aegis destroyers. In fiscal year 1994, the Congress 
appropriated the administration's full budget request for three 
destroyers. I worked hard as a member of the Senate Appropriations 
Defense Subcommittee to secure these funds. Although the House of 
Representatives initially did not provide funding for all three 
destroyers, the Senate position on the program was adopted and full 
funding was ultimately provided.
  Madam President, the DDG-51 Aegis destroyer program is not the place 
to find savings. With the Navy decommissioning surface combat ships at 
a rapid pace due to force structure draw-downs, the need to maintain a 
strong DDG-51 destroyer program is even more pronounced. With a 
markedly diminished fleet, the power and versatility of DDG-51 
destroyers will allow maximum fighting capability with a reduced number 
of ships and personnel.
  With the ever changing security threat, the United States needs to 
maintain a strong Naval presence. We need to ensure that our destroyer 
fleet is modernized. The DDG-51 Aegis destroyers are an integral part 
of the Navy's efforts to modernize its destroyer fleet and keep the 
Navy's presence strong.
  I urge my colleagues to preserve funding for this important program.


                  the bipartisan spending cut package

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, the bill, as reported by the 
Appropriations Committee, already cuts title I of Public Law 480 by 10 
percent. Title III is cut by 16 percent. The committee was very 
reluctant even to make these cuts, considering that this program is 
very important for feeding the world's hungry people. Currently, we are 
seeing increased concern about additional famines in Africa.
  The Public Law 480 program is a unique foreign aid program which, for 
nearly 50 years, has helped hungry and malnourished people in poor 
countries, while directly benefiting U.S. agriculture and commerce. 
Nearly all of the funds are spent to purchase U.S. commodities and 
transportation services. Title I provides for the sale of commodities 
on concessional terms to food deficit countries that are potential 
markets or emerging democracies and title III provides for the donation 
of commodities to the poorest countries.
  The Public Law 480 program level was already cut by $101 million in 
the 1994 agriculture appropriations bill. Further reductions would 
limit the U.S. ability to meet emergency food needs abroad, and 
arguably, to fulfill a humane duty by this Nation to help feed people 
in nations much less fortunate than we.
  The proposal to cut titles I and III by an additional 20 percent 
would result in a total reduction in fiscal year 1994 Public Law 480 
foreign food assistance of $155.3 million. The title I program, which 
provides agricultural commodities to developing countries and emerging 
democracies through concessional credit financing, would be reduced by 
$99.3 million. The title III program, which provides agricultural 
commodity assistance to least developed countries on grant terms, would 
be reduced by $56.0 million.
  The proposal would result in a total reduction in fiscal year 1994 
Public Law 480 commodity assistance of just over 800,000 metric tons. 
Title I assistance would decline by 550,000 metric tons, while title 
III assistance would be reduced by 250,000 metric tons. U.S. exports of 
the following commodities would be the most affected by reduced Public 
Law 480 programming: wheat and wheat products, corn and corn products, 
rice, vegetable oils, oilseeds and meals, and cotton. Reduced exports 
of these commodities could result in lower prices to farmers and higher 
costs for the domestic price and income support programs.
  In recent years, Public Law 480 title I programming has become 
increasingly important to U.S. efforts to assist the Newly Independent 
States of the former Soviet Union as well as the countries of Eastern 
Europe. These efforts would be impaired by the proposed reduction in 
title I programming. Among these countries which have been allocated 
title I assistance for fiscal year 1994 are: Albania, Armenia, Belarus, 
Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Kyrgystan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, 
Poland, Romania, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.
  The title I program also serves important market development 
objectives of the Department of Agriculture, with programming 
frequently carried out in conjunction with other USDA market 
development activities. The proposed reduction in title I programming 
would lessen the effectiveness of these efforts. For example, in the 
Philippines, the title I program is an integral part of a livestock 
improvement program that relies on title I soybean meal for feed stocks 
and GSM-103 intermediate-term export credit guarantees for breeding 
animal imports. The aim is to expand the Philippines' privatized 
livestock sector and ultimately United States exports of feed grains 
and protein meals. In Morocco and Yemen, title I wheat programming 
complements market development efforts for wheat that include GSM 
export credit guarantees and the Export Enhancement Program to meet EC 
competition. In Pakistan, title I assistance is a critical element in 
USDA efforts to maintain the largest overseas market for United States 
vegetable oil exports.
  The title III program provides needed food assistance to countries 
which are among the poorest in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the 
Caribbean. The program also helps to support U.S. development 
assistance activities through the generation of local currencies when 
the food is sold on the local market. United States assistance to these 
countries would be impaired as a result of the proposed reduction in 
title III programming. Among the countries receiving the largest 
allocations of title III assistance are: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, 
Peru, and Sri Lanka.
  The United States has traditionally provided about 60 percent of 
total world food assistance and has been a leader in encouraging other 
countries to contribute to global food aid efforts. The proposed 
reduction in Public Law 480 titles I and III programming is likely to 
raise serious questions about the continued U.S. commitment to assist 
countries which are unable to meet their food import needs through 
commercial purchases.


  reduce agricultural research buildings and facilities to requested 
                                 level

  The Kerrey proposal eliminates funding for all buildings and 
facilities through USDA's Cooperative State Research Service.
  These research facilities are an investment in the future of 
agriculture in this country and in the world. Numerous breakthroughs 
have been achieved because of our Federal research facilities, 
breakthroughs that have led to a significant increase of food 
production in this country, elimination and control of plant and animal 
pests and diseases, and a broader knowledge of human nutrition and 
health.
  As the population of this country, and indeed of the world, continues 
to climb, we dare not be shortsighted by making insignificant spending 
cuts now in programs that will be instrumental in feeding these 
populations in the future.
  Furthermore, if we cut back on funding for these projects that are in 
the works, and if we are compelled to complete funding for them at some 
future point, the costs will surely escalate, and in the long run, the 
budgetary impact will be greater than it is today.


 Reduce Travel Accounts by 15 Percent for Specific Executive Agencies 
                       and the Legislative Branch

  A reduction of 15 percent in travel would severely impact on USDA's 
ability to carry out its programs. Travel is an integral part of some 
programs. For example: Meat and poultry inspectors travel to plants to 
provide inplant inspection of all domestic establishments preparing 
meat or poultry products; grain inspectors travel to provide mandatory 
inspection and weighing services in the United States and Canada; 
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service county office staff 
travel is necessary to carry out assistance provided; Farmers Home 
Administration county office staff travel is necessary to make and 
service loans in rural areas; Rural Electrification Administration 
staff travel in connection with making and servicing of rural electric 
and telephone loans; Soil Conservation Service staff travel in 
connection with providing technical assistance for conservation 
activities; and Office of Inspector General travel would be impacted 
because auditors travel throughout the United States doing onsite 
audits of USDA programs.


                      terminate the honey program

  Already this year, the honey program has received considerable 
attention from Congress. The reconciliation bill lowered the spending 
caps per producer to $50,000 by 1998. The agriculture appropriations 
bill stopped funding for 1994 completely, although presumably, 
producers could still acquire loans on honey but no forfeitures of 
those loans would be permitted. Now this proposal is to terminate the 
program completely.
  Why the honey program should be singled out for termination remains 
elusive. Like other farm commodities, honey producers in this country 
suffer from unfair competition from abroad, most notably China. This 
flood of cheap imports undercuts our honey program by undercutting the 
price of honey. Without some type of support, our producers cannot 
compete and stay in the business. It's like any other farm support 
program, the cost of production becomes too expensive for the return 
and the business goes under.
  As has been pointed out by several of my colleagues on past 
occasions, the beekeeping industry's significance to the rest of 
agriculture is often overlooked. The program has been effective in 
maintaining sufficient honeybee populations to pollinate important 
agricultural crops. More than 140 cultivated crops either require or 
benefit from bee pollination, including millions of acres of fruits, 
vegetables, oilseeds, and legume seed crops. Pollination provided by 
honey bees has increased in importance to farmers in recent years as 
urbanization and other pressures on the environment have reduced the 
availability of other natural pollinators.


require specific ending-stocks-to-use ratios for setting arps for feed 
                                 grains

  This proposal would require the Secretary of Agriculture to set land 
idling requirements under the corn program so that projected stocks of 
corn do not exceed 18.6 percent of projected use. This approach to 
reducing program costs was considered but rejected during debate on the 
reconciliation bill this past summer.
  Two major objections can be raised to the proposal. First, estimated 
outlay reductions may prove illusory. CBO estimates that the proposal 
would reduce outlays by the Commodity Credit Corporation by several 
hundred million dollars over the next 5 years. Those estimated savings 
occur because the proposal would require the Secretary to target a 
lower stock level than is assumed in CBO's baseline. Lower stocks would 
be obtained by increasing setaside rates, which would raise market 
prices and thereby reduce Government deficiency payments made to 
producers.
  Given the uncertainties of weather, world market demand, and 
secretarial discretion, it is not clear whether the proposed stock 
targets would actually change any program provisions. Indeed, it is 
possible that the proposed rules could actually result in lower set-
aside rates and higher Government costs in some years.
  The estimated savings are entirely dependent on CBO's baseline. The 
targeted stock level was not chosen for any policy purpose, but rather 
to obtain a certain level of CBO-estimated savings. Against a different 
baseline, the savings could be very different or nonexistent.
  The second major problem is the potential negative effects on farm 
income are large. After a large crop that increases stock levels, the 
Kerry proposal would require the Secretary to set land-idling 
requirements high enough to reduce stocks to 18.6 percent of use. That 
may require much higher set-aside rates than the Secretary would 
otherwise choose. While higher set-aside rates do increase market 
prices, reduced production and deficiency payments generally mean that 
farm income is reduced. Higher grain prices increase the cost of 
producing livestock and make it more difficult to sell our grain in 
world markets.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I cannot support the Kerrey-Brown 
amendment despite my longstanding record of voting in favor of budget 
reduction efforts. I will briefly review my objections to some of the 
amendment's provisions.
  First, I cannot support what I see as new taxes on senior citizens. 
The Kerrey-Brown amendment means tests several Medicare programs. 
President Clinton's budget unfairly affected these same people last 
summer. That budget included raises in Social Security taxes on income 
beyond $34,000 for single seniors. It is too soon to further increase 
the amount of money that the Federal Government takes from these 
people, many of modest means.
  Second, I cannot support the provision regarding COLA freezes for 
current civilian or military retirees. I feel that it is fundamentally 
unfair to change the rules of the game after the playing of the game. 
We made promises to these people during the time that they worked for 
the Federal Government or served in the Armed Forces. In my view, we 
should not pull the rug out from under one specific group of people 
without asking for across-the-board COLA reductions.
  Finally, I am concerned about the proposal to completely defer COLA's 
for military retirees before they turn 62. A major draw for those 
entering the military at a young age is the possibility to retire from 
the military at a relatively young age. The current practice allows 
military retirees a chance to start second careers at relatively young 
ages. These second careers start, however, only after 20 to 30 years of 
service to their country. Clearly, the lure of this benefit makes the 
armed services an attractive choice for some of the best of America's 
young adults. If we take this away, we do a disservice to those who 
might serve and hinder the recruiting activities of the Armed Forces.
  Madam President, this Senator has taken the tough votes on the 
deficit in the past. I will take them in the future. This amendment is 
an unfair attempt to balance the budget on the wrong people.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Madam President, I rise to register my strong 
support for the deficit reduction amendment that has been offered by my 
distinguished colleagues from Nebraska and Colorado.
  As a cosponsor of this amendment, I must also express my deep 
disappointment that this body will not have an opportunity to formally 
consider such an important and needed proposal as an amendment to a 
rescission bill, earlier promised for consideration by this body.
  I want to begin Madam President, by applauding the leadership on this 
issue exhibited by Senators Kerrey, Brown, and others in this body, as 
well as by Congressmen Penny, Kasich, and their allies in the House.
  Cutting spending is not something we do either willingly or well in 
this body. Politicians have never been very good at saying ``no.'' It 
is much easier to promise and deliver new or bigger programs, or, even 
better, to make new financial commitments we don't even have to 
explicitly renew each year.
  So, it is no wonder that our total national debt has now grown to 
$4.7 trillion. And, despite all the legislative arms we saw twisted and 
broken over this year's budget bill, that huge obligation being placed 
on future generations will grow by another trillion dollars in the next 
5 years.
  I should note, Madam President, that those of us on this side of the 
aisle were not asked to help make that number smaller. And, when the 
budget bill came to the floor last year, we all voted ``no.''
  A few brave colleagues on the other side voted with us and some, like 
our distinguished colleague from Nebraska, went along with the 
President's plan, but insisted that it not be the last chance we had 
this year to do even more. I am disappointed that a commitment to 
consider a rescission package has been ignored.


            deficit reduction and powerful special interests

  As the revised Kerrey-Brown proposal was circulated this week, Madam 
President, one could quickly see why it is so difficult to take on the 
very tough job of reducing the Federal deficit.
  Behind each of the dozens of programs being cut in this proposal is a 
long list of well-meaning interest groups, and powerful allies in the 
Congress and the administration. In fact, I could tell what programs 
were being cut just by looking at my incoming mail and the report my 
staff gives me each day on calls coming into my Washington and 
Minnesota offices.


               an important place to begin to move ahead

  Senators Kerrey and Brown have put together a $99.1 billion package 
of specific budget cuts. Sure, some are controversial, but the 
important thing is that Senators are willing to stand up and support a 
significant decrease in the deficit, despite all of the procedural and 
substantive reasons not to support this kind of proposal. There are 
specific cuts in this package that I would rather not have included, 
such as the cut in the legal services program. However, Madam 
President, all we need is an opportunity to consider this proposal. 
Then we can get down to the business of negotiating to achieve the best 
possible combination of cuts. The important thing is that a bipartisan 
group of Senators are committed to support $99.1 billion of additional 
cuts beyond what we have accomplished last year in the budget process 
and in addition to what will be submitted by the President in this 
year's budget request.
  In my judgment, it is pure folly not to support this proposal just 
because there may be a few specific cuts that do not seem justifiable 
or which might be used as offsets for other proposals such as health 
care reform. The package can be adjusted as needed, as long as we stick 
to the $99 billion goal. The real challenge before us is to just find 
the opportunity to pursue this needed deficit reduction without the 
usual roadblocks.


          future generations are watching as we refuse to act

  Unfortunately, Madam President, future generations cannot vote and do 
not lobby. So, I have not heard from a lot of stakeholders that I 
should support deeper cuts in Federal spending. Certainly, no one is 
stepping forward and offering to give up their piece of the pie.
  That means we need to look to the President and the Congress for 
leadership--to place the collective public interest above selfish 
individual interests that so often stifle real change.


                 lessons need be applied from the past

  More than 15 years ago I was elected to this body on a wave of anger 
that started in places like Minnesota and that produced a Republican 
Senate and new Republican President 2 years later. Americans at that 
time were angry with a Government that cost too much and delivered too 
little.
  And, we did deliver on at least half the assignment we were given. We 
cut taxes. We put more money in the hands and pockets of Americans. 
And, we produced the longest peacetime period of economic recovery in 
this Nation's history.
  But, any child can understand that if you cut taxes, but do not cut 
spending, you only run up the deficit. And, that is exactly what we 
did.
  It is not that some of us did not try to do otherwise. In fact, three 
of our colleagues became household words over a deficit reduction law 
that gave many Americans the impression we were cutting spending at the 
same time we were cutting their taxes.
  But, even before there was Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, Madam President, 
there was a little known piece of legislation called Durenberger-
Gorton. It required the President to submit a balanced budget each 
year, alongside his usual unbalanced budget. That would at least force 
all of us--both Congress and the administration--to see the kind of 
tough choices that enacting a balanced budget would require.


        the dawn of a new national movement--generational equity

  Unfortunately, Durenberger-Gorton was never enacted. And, even 
through three or four incarnations of its more famous cousin, deficit 
reduction all through the 1980's did little more than place a small 
bandage on a deep wound in America's jugular. And, as life continued to 
drain from America's future, my generation continued to live for today.
  I saw all that happening, Madam President, at about the same time my 
own four sons were enacting adulthood. So, this preoccupation with the 
intergenerational injustice going on was, for me, as real as watching 
my own children being handed a life that held much less promise than 
the opportunities I was handed by my parents just 30 years earlier.
  My personal turning point in dealing with that injustice was a speech 
I gave in the spring of 1984 to graduating seniors--and their parents 
and grandparents--at St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN. That speech 
was about debt--personal debt, corporate debt, and national debt--and 
how it represented an incredible and unfair burden being shifted from 
one generation to another.
  During the rest of that year, I launched a new national organization 
called Americans for Generational Equity [AGE]--an organization to 
educate my generation and to give some hope to the next.
  Like a lot of good ideas, AGE had trouble in today's conflict-
conscious society in communicating its purpose. Much of the media 
immediately saw AGE as a wedge designed to turn one generation against 
another. Some interest groups representing older Americans saw AGE as a 
threat to the gains their generation had made--a means to shift wealth 
from one generation to another in the increasingly zero sum mentality 
of the 1980's.
  But, despite these obstacles, AGE did have some impact on our 
understanding of the deficit and its meaning to future generations. 
And, through speeches and publications and conferences, many of us saw 
the same intergenerational implications of decisions we make about our 
physical infrastructure, how well we take care of our environment, and 
what priority we place on investments -- like prenatal care, child 
immunizations, Head Start, or WIC -- that we make in our Nation's 
youngest citizens.
  As I prepared for what I hoped would be a real Senate debate on the 
Kerrey-Brown proposal, Madam President, I reviewed some of the speeches 
I gave during that period of the mid-1980's.
  The only changes needed to use those speeches today are to double or 
triple the size of the numbers. And, therein lies the urgency of acting 
now -- not next year or in some future year -- to make the kind of real 
spending cuts that we as a nation must make.
  In one of those speeches--a 1986 talk my staff still calls the ``Fork 
in the Road Speech''--I warned of the evils of what was then a $2.1 
trillion deficit and spoke optimistically of the new Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings law that would bring the annual deficit down to zero by 1991.
  I also suggested four important steps this nation must take -- beyond 
Gramm-Rudman--if the goal were to ever be realized.
  First, stop pointing fingers up and down Pennsylvania Avenue; stop 
blaming past policies; and start aiming ourselves toward a better 
government in the future.
  Second, enact deeper spending cuts beyond Gramm-Rudman--including an 
immediate leveling off in our extraordinary defense build-up, and 
additional cuts and reforms or elimination of general government 
programs.
  Third, reform our entitlement programs--including additional cuts or 
reforms in nonmeans-tested programs like Medicare.
  And, finally, I said, there is simply no way we can get from a $220 
billion deficit to zero without raising more revenue from tax reform 
than the President proposes.
  That advice is just as valid today, Madam President, as it was in 
January 1986. And, the urgency of following that advice today is even 
greater.


            real reform means agreeing on national purposes

  Gramm-Rudman-Hollings is not the only tool we have tried to use in 
reducing the deficit, Madam President. We also tried -- and failed -- 
to pass a balanced budget amendment, a line-item veto, and many other 
approaches designed to institutionalize greater discipline and 
restraint in Federal Government spending.
  And, many of us remember that dramatic evening in 1985 when the now-
Governor of California was wheeled into this Chamber to cast the 
deciding vote on a truly courageous deficit reduction package I'm proud 
that my party in the Senate was willing to put forward.
  We lost that opportunity when the President and Speaker of the House 
cut us off at the knees. And, left politically exposed, enough of my 
Republican colleagues were turned out of office the next year to make a 
former Federal judge from Maine the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.
  One reason all these good faith efforts have failed, Madam President, 
is that we have not collectively agreed on a meaningful set of national 
purposes that could be used as a guide.
  Also in an earlier era--during the height of the Reagan revolution--I 
outlined my own guideposts for agreeing on national purposes.
  ``Just because potholes are a problem in every community in 
America,'' I was fond of saying in those days, ``does not make `pot 
hole filling' a national government responsibility.''
  To decide what is, I suggested a series of guideposts that included:

       The national government has the responsibility to secure 
     the national rights and liberties guaranteed by the 
     Constitution to all Americans.
       The national government has the responsibility to defend 
     American interests and conduct foreign relations in the 
     community of nations.
       The national government has the responsibility to promote 
     economic growth and regulate interstate commerce.
       The national government has a responsibility where 
     significant savings can be realized by operating a central 
     program.
       The national government has a responsibility where 
     significant benefits are realized by citizens in more than 
     one state.
       The national government has a responsibility when national 
     decisions impose extraordinary costs on some states or 
     regions of the country.
       The national government has a responsibility when 
     competition among the states keeps them from implementing 
     programs that would make all better off.
       The national government has a responsibility to ease the 
     disparities in fiscal capacity among the states.
       And, the national government has the responsibility to 
     provide for the income security of all Americans.

  This kind of a list--used to sort out responsibilities among various 
levels of government--is as needed today as it was a decade ago.
  And, it is not just needed in cutting Federal spending or eliminating 
national Government programs.
  Having a firm sense of national purposes must also be at the heart of 
any national program to reform health care, reform our Nation's welfare 
system, better prepare Americans for school or work, or any number of 
other proposals now on the Nation's political and legislative agenda.


                let us have the courage to move forward

  I believe we can design a $99 billion deficit reduction package that 
is based on this proposal, Madam President. I would have preferred a 
more appropriate vehicle than this bill, but I would urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of this important proposal.
  I personally believe that deficit reduction is an abuse on which the 
American people are way ahead of their politicians. Because of the kind 
of grass roots leadership and education being done by groups like the 
Concord Coalition, I believe there will be a political safety net out 
there for those of us willing to take the plunge.
  I have just 1 more year to make good on that opportunity, Madam 
President, an opportunity I saw a decade ago and an opportunity that 
our children must not let us ignore.
  Let me conclude with a challenge I set down in a speech I gave to the 
Minnesota Jaycees annual convention in 1985.

       Dealing with generational equity, I told this group of 
     young men and women, will take the very patient bringing 
     together of grandparents and grandchildren, the facing of the 
     realities of what we are doing to each other in our desire to 
     have without paying. It doesn't mean that we've got to do 
     without grandfolks. It does mean that we have a plan now for 
     the kind of future we have an obligation to pass on to the 
     next generation.
       These are difficult problems requiring tough solutions. 
     But, history tells us that the safest course at difficult 
     times in our lives is to tackle our problems head on. In this 
     nation, there are more than enough ideas, and more than 
     enough determined individuals like yourselves to meet these 
     difficult challenges.
       We who have lived with these problems desperately need you, 
     who are unwilling to live with them, to show us the way.

  We still face that difficult challenge in 1993, Madam President. And, 
all of us need to be willing to pick up that challenge and to show the 
way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, today we face a difficult choice. It is 
a day when the wrong choice is the easy one, and the right choice is 
the painful one.
  The bill before us, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill 
for 1994, provides aid for earthquake victims in Southern California. I 
have serious questions about the way we fund and prepare for disaster 
relief in general. But no one disputes that the families overwhelmed by 
this disaster need the help of the Federal Government. So I will, 
although with some reluctance, vote for the bill as a whole.
  I will also vote for an amendment offered by Senator Kerrey of 
Nebraska. The bill as is cuts $3.44 billion in previously approved 
spending. Senator Kerrey's amendment will cut $7 billion in 1994 above 
and beyond the existing cut, and a total of $94 billion over 5 years.
  This is a tough, perhaps even drastic amendment. My support for it as 
a whole does not indicate enthusiasm for each of its individual cuts. 
The cuts in Public Law 480 food aid and the honey program will cause 
real pain at home in Montana. Means-testing for Medicare part B will 
make wealthy senior citizens pay a bit more. But the amendment spreads 
the pain around the country fairly.
  More important, we have a drastic problem with the Federal budget 
deficit. And if we are to solve it, we need to take some drastic 
measures. We all have to grit our teeth and take some pain, and Montana 
is no exception.
  Madam President, it is time to followup words about wasteful spending 
and the budget deficits with acts that eliminate the waste and reduce 
the deficit. We must each of us take responsibility for putting the 
Federal Government's fiscal house in order. Each Montanan, each 
American, each Senator, must take responsibility.
  In the next few weeks, the Senate will consider the balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution. One of the most powerful arguments 
against this proposal is that it is a gimmick. It is no substitute for 
real spending cuts. The votes we cast today on the Kerrey amendment are 
the real thing. It is tough, but it is right for America, and right for 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on the motion to table 
amendment numbered 1440.
  Who yields time?
  Senators Brown and Kerrey have 10 minutes, collectively; Senator 
Hatfield has 5 minutes; and Senator Byrd, not to exceed 10 minutes.
  If time is not used, it will be deducted proportionately.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I think the order called for those 
speakers and the times allotted to them ad seriatim.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has so announced.
  Mr. BYRD. So the time is now being run and charged against Senators 
Kerrey and Brown?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I call my colleagues' attention to the 
fact that this is a good faith effort that began last year during the 
budget reconciliation debate. Those of us who voted for it can now call 
attention to the significant deficit reduction that has occurred since 
that piece of legislation was enacted. But, we believe, those of us who 
have worked on this since that time, that this is merely one more step.
  I voted in 1990 for President Bush's proposal that produced the now 
famous summit. I voted for President Clinton's proposal in 1993. Both 
of them, in my judgment, were taking steps toward the goal of having 
this Nation's fiscal account in balance.
  That is where I believe we should be. It is a belief, Madam 
President. And I am willing to take action, take votes that will, in 
fact, bring this about.
  This attempt, this motion to substitute the Hatfield substitute, 
creates some confusion because what it does is it presents Members now 
with a piece of legislation that has them wondering whether or not they 
can vote for deep cuts in defense and then the underlying Kerrey-Brown 
bipartisan amendment.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to 
table. A vote against the motion to table will allow us to vote on 
Kerrey-Brown up or down in a clean fashion and on the proposal of the 
Senator from Oregon up or down in a clean fashion. It seems to me that 
is a fair way to do it and an appropriate way to do it.
  If you believe in reducing expenditures of the U.S. Federal 
Government, you are going to have two solid proposals to do so. We have 
a lousy mechanism that gives us the opportunity to debate in support of 
things. We have alluded to it several times. We can come very quickly 
to spend money, but when it comes time to spend less money, we have all 
kinds of reasons why it cannot be done.
  In fact, I think the debate we have heard here today illustrates why 
we need to have this sort of thing. It would be very instructive to 
find out how well the amendment of the Senator from Oregon would do all 
by itself; how well the 11 Members who have signed onto our amendment 
would do all by itself. That would be very interesting, very 
informative to determine whether or not our spending priorities, in 
fact, are right.
  I think our spending priorities are not right. Every Member of this 
body, or nearly every Member of this body, has stood at home in town 
hall meetings saying we need to balance our budget. We are going to 
debate a constitutional amendment that requires us to do it. That 
constitutional amendment, if we are serious, requires $600 billion over 
the next 5 years. This is $90 billion. We have heard that it is not $90 
billion; it is $90 billion.
  Even the 262,000 personnel reduction is not in law, Madam President. 
It is a smokescreen.
  To say that we have deluded, we have not. We have disclosed fully 
what we intend to do. We are open to the possibility of adding to this. 
But what we find, instead, is a confusing motion to table, in my 
judgment, that should itself be rejected so that we can have a straight 
up-or-down vote on Kerrey-Brown as well as a straight up-or-down vote 
on the proposal offered by the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I simply want to add this statement. The 
State of Colorado is a bit unusual in a way because we are blessed with 
residents from all over the Nation. People from West Virginia, 
Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and California come to Colorado. We are lucky 
to have them. It is a good cross-section, in a way.
  One of the things I have done over the years is hold town meetings. 
In that time, I have had over 500 town meetings. There is not a single 
time in any one of those 500 town meetings when we brought up the 
subject of this debate, when Democrats, Republicans, Independents, 
liberals or conservatives have not expressed the need to face up to 
this problem.
  Madam President, I have yet to find a single person in any of those 
500 town meetings who was not willing to agree to a package that cut 
spending and got the deficit under control. But what they demanded was 
this: They wanted it fair, they wanted it balanced, and they wanted 
everybody to contribute. Every single one of them were willing to do 
their part.
  I believe the American citizens who are watching tonight and will 
watch in the future want a package that is fair and evenhanded, that 
has real cuts in it, that treats people evenly and fairly.
  That is what this does. It is balanced--28 percent discretionary; 37 
percent management reforms; 35 percent entitlement savings. It is 
balanced in the backing of it--seven Democrats and five Republicans are 
the sponsors of it. It is a fair, evenhanded way to do it.
  If we do not do it now, if we do not face up to it, when will we do 
it? The fact is, delay is all our enemy.
  I urge the adoption of the Kerrey-Brown measure. I urge a vote 
against tabling that is before us at this time.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator reserves the remainder of his 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Kempthorne of Idaho be added as a cosponsor of our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. How much time does the Senator from Colorado and I have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One and a half minutes remain on the time of 
the Senator from Nebraska and 1\1/2\ minutes remain on the time of the 
Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous consent that time of the Senator from 
Colorado be allocated to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, the Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I am going to talk for 3 minutes. The 
Senator from Virginia has asked for a minute or two. If he arrives 
before my time expires, he will get that. If not, I will talk for the 
time that is left.
  I say again that voting against this motion to table is the right 
vote. Those who want to cut defense can vote for the amendment of the 
Senator from Oregon. And there are some in this body who might think 
that that is an appropriate thing to do. I will vote against the 
amendment of the Senator from Oregon.
  There will be others who do not like certain aspects of the now 12 
Members who are on the bipartisan amendment that is called Kerrey-
Brown, and they can vote against that, as well, or vote for it as they 
wish.
  We do not have a good procedure to bring to the floor this kind of an 
amendment. As I have said on a number of occasions, it comes as a 
consequence of the culmination of the rescission package in the dire 
supplemental that we are even approaching the dire supplemental bill in 
this fashion. But it does illustrate the difference. If we want to move 
an appropriations bill very rapidly, particularly since we do not have 
to pay for it, we will just deficit finance it all. It moves relatively 
fast.
  There was a swarm of interest last year when we funded the dire 
emergency for the Midwest disaster; there is, as I understand it, 
another $700 million added to the California disaster.
  There is such bipartisan comradery, such ease with which we all get 
together and put aside our old differences and show the great spirit 
that made this country such a wonderful place to live. But when it 
comes time to put an amendment together to reduce spending, there just 
is not a procedure for us to do it. We find ourselves saying this is 
not the right time, this is not the right way.

  Madam President, this has been an eye opener for me because it allows 
me to see that we have a flaw in our Budget Act, in the law that 
governs the deliberation of our budget. I think we need an expedited 
fashion in which to bring this sort of thing to the floor so we could 
have an open debate, because in the absence of that open debate I think 
we frustrate the will of the people. The close vote on Penny-Kasich 
last fall and perhaps the concern about the Kerrey-Brown amendment here 
indicates, in my judgment, there is likely to be a majority of people 
in this body who are willing to say we are prepared to make tough 
choices on entitlements, we are prepared to make tough choices on 
domestic discretionary, on the size and efficiency of the Federal 
Government. We are prepared to do that for the sake of what we believe 
is in the best interests of our country.
  Madam President, I do not believe the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia is going to make it here. He is a cosponsor of this piece of 
legislation. I will, on his behalf, urge my colleagues to vote against 
the motion to table offered by the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Under the unanimous consent agreement, the Senator from Oregon is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, very briefly, I think you would not 
find a Member out of the 100-person body who would not be supportive of 
the objective that has been stated so clearly by the Senator from 
Nebraska, the Senator from Colorado, and their associates. But I point 
out again this is not a matter of whether we want to reduce, or we are 
capable of reducing the deficit. It is a matter of priorities, of where 
we make the cuts. Again, I emphasize the Kerrey-Brown, et cetera, 
amendment takes all of the reductions out of the nondefense 
discretionary programs.
  Conversely, to make my point, my amendment as a substitute takes all 
of the reductions, and we get in fact to the same 5-year period, $96 
billion as against $94 billion, exclusively from the defense 
discretionary funds, including the exotic weapons, the B-2, Trident 
submarine, aircraft carriers--all of these weapons systems that were 
designed, devised as a strategy during the cold war and during the 
threat of the Soviet Union.
  I am suggesting that it is a matter of priority. That happens to be 
my priority. There may not be another Senator in this body who would 
agree to my priorities but those are as much my priorities as the 
priorities that have been embodied in the Kerrey-Brown proposal.
  What I am suggesting is simply we ought to update the strategy of our 
defense and military weapons systems necessary to sustain that defense 
under a whole new world of geopolitics. We are still spending more for 
defense in our single United States budget than all of NATO--all the 
NATO countries, plus Japan, put together. And, therefore, it indicates 
the disproportionate share, it seems to me, of our bearing the world's 
sense of defense and the world's peacekeeping activity.
  So my purpose in offering this is just to illustrate that particular 
difference of priority. Not in any way to demean or to denigrate the 
pending amendment that I provided my amendment as a substitute to, but 
merely to say it happens to be a set of priorities different than the 
ones that we heard first proposed.
  Madam President, I am going to vote for the Byrd proposal of tabling 
the entire package, if you want to call it that. Then I think we have 
learned a great deal from this debate and we should go back to the 
drafting board and perhaps build a consensus a little broader than 
excluding all military reductions in order to reduce the deficit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield time?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from West 
Virginia the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Madam President, we have two amendments now pending: The underlying 
amendment by Mr. Kerrey and Mr. Brown and other Senators, and the 
amendment in the second degree, the substitute, offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Oregon, [Mr. Hatfield].
  It is my understanding my motion to table, which has already been 
made, will be directed to the underlying amendment and that will carry 
with it, if the tabling motion is successful, the amendment in the 
second degree, also.
  I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia.
  I heard the Senator from Oregon say this Kerrey amendment does not 
cut defense. He and I are on the same side of this. I plan to vote to 
table. But I have a different perception. Because it is my 
understanding--maybe I do not understand the Kerrey amendment 
correctly--but it is my understanding it takes a very large amount out 
of personnel and those personnel cuts have already been taken in the 
defense bill. So, again, I may be under a misimpression here. But it 
seems to me that a very large part of the Kerrey amendment is a double 
counting of cuts that have already been made.
  I am not sure where that unwinds. But this really is the third time 
we have spent the same money. And in terms of savings, we took the 
personnel cuts last year that were anticipated in defense and we said 
we were paying for the crime bill with those cuts. That bill has passed 
the Senate. It has not passed the House. I do not know how that is 
going to be reconciled. I think the President addresses that in his 
budget.
  The second time these savings are being made on the personnel--and 70 
percent of the civilian personnel cuts are in the defense budget--is in 
the President's budget. Those reductions are being made in the 
President's budget. So this is the third time that I know of we are 
doing the same thing; we are cutting the same people. You do not save 
the money but one time, but we are claiming it three times.
  If I understand also what the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee has said--again, I defer to him on this one--but he has also 
said another big hunk of this savings comes out of overhead. Yet the 
overhead cuts in this Kerrey amendment, if I understand what the 
Senator said correctly, are not as much as the overhead cuts, the same 
overhead cuts that are taken out of the President's budget.
  So the way I read this amendment, one half--if you count the military 
personnel cuts and the overhead cuts--one half of the total 5-year 
savings that are claimed here have already been done either by the 
President's budget or in the overall defense budget.
  So as much as I would like to join my friend from Nebraska in this 
kind of effort, and I do think there are enough votes building here to 
come up with some overall approach, I would have to oppose the 
amendment at this point in time, based on my understanding of what it 
does. We cannot cut personnel but one time. We cannot count them but 
one time. We are drawing down the defense budget in a very large way.
  We have reduced the defense budget every year since 1985. We now have 
cut about one-third out of the defense budget. The President's program 
calls for, over the next 2 or 3 years, getting that up to about 40 
percent--1985 versus 1990, the late 1990's. So we are making 
significant cuts in the defense budget. But I think most people in this 
body do not want to see the defense budget just ripped apart, leaving 
us in the same position we have been in after every war, which in 
effect leads to the next vacuum in the world, which leads either to 
bloodshed or to the rebuilding of defense, with precious resources 
wasted.
  So, Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I would like 
to at some point join with my friend from Nebraska in taking an overall 
approach that would be balanced. But on this particular one, based on 
what I know of the amendment now, I cannot support it.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia, Mr. Nunn.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes and 44 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, as I pointed out earlier in my opposition to this 
amendment, a large amount of the claimed saving simply does not exist; 
$26.7 billion claimed as savings from cuts in the Federal work force 
have already been used in the Senate-passed crime bill to establish a 
Violent Crime Trust Fund. The vote on establishing that trust fund, 
which will be used to fully fund the crime bill, was 94 to 4. Moreover, 
the $21 billion claimed as a result of freezing Federal overhead costs 
for 2 years, and then allowing overhead costs to grow by the rate of 
inflation for the next 3 years, will not occur.
  This is because the President, by Executive order, has already cut 
Federal overhead spending for each of the next 5 years.
  Furthermore, the $30 billion claimed in the amendment from reforms in 
Medicare shall not be used now for deficit reduction purposes. All 
pending health care reform measures would use such savings in order to 
help finance improved health care for all Americans.
  It follows that the overwhelming percentage of savings claimed by 
this amendment simply do not exist. Senators should be aware that if 
this amendment is adopted--and I hope Senators will listen--Senators 
should be aware that if this amendment is adopted, the conference on 
this bill will take days, if not weeks, to complete--I hope that 
Senators will pay close attention to that--take days, this conference 
will, if not weeks. Why? Because virtually every Senate and House 
committee will have to be directly involved in the conference, 
authorizing committees in addition to the appropriations committees.
  This amendment makes changes under the jurisdiction of committees 
throughout the House and Senate. It makes changes under the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, the Agriculture Committee, the 
Labor Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, as well. Each of these 
committees would want to have their input in the conference, and they 
ought to, on the issues in their jurisdictions, which are of a 
nonappropriations nature.
  Now the House takes the position--and I honor that position--that in 
conference, the House conferees will not sit down with conferees on 
appropriations if conferees from authorizing committees are included. I 
share that feeling, but that would be most unfair to the authorizing 
committees--most unfair--if they were excluded. Each of these 
committees would want to have their input on the issues in their 
jurisdictions, which are of a non-appropriation nature.
  I urge my colleagues not to adopt this amendment. We are sowing the 
dragon's teeth if we do so.
  Now, hear me, hear me, a letter addressed to Robert C. Byrd, February 
9, today, from AARP:

       Dear Senator Byrd: Older Americans support deficit 
     reduction----

  And, parenthetically, I do, too, and I am an older American as well.

     Provided that the sacrifices called for are fair. The Kerrey 
     amendment is not fair.

  My friend from Nebraska talked to me and talked to the Senate earlier 
about fairness; talked about fairness in the use of the Senate rules. 
Well, AARP in this letter addressed to me says:

       The Kerrey amendment is not fair. It singles out older 
     Americans for particular pain and adds insult to the injury 
     inflicted on older Americans in the 1993 budget by the $56 
     billion in Medicare cuts. Under the Kerrey amendment, nearly 
     one-third of the proposed savings come at the expense of 
     older Americans. No other group is asked to bear such a 
     disproportionate burden of deficit reduction. The plan metes 
     out particular pain to those who are the most ill by 
     increasing out-of-pocket costs for home health and laboratory 
     services.
       Worse yet, this amendment comes at a time when millions of 
     Californians are awaiting disaster relief from the recent 
     earthquake. Holding victims of the earthquake hostage in 
     order to move a political agenda is truly a return to the 
     worst gridlock that Washington has to offer. As a result, 
     AARP strongly opposes the Kerrey amendment.
       Let us be clear about what the Kerrey plan would do to 
     near-poor older Americans. Those who use Medicare home health 
     services would have to pay $425 more out of pocket for 
     coinsurance, on average, in 1994; those age 85 and older, 
     primarily women, would have to pay $560 more. In effect, the 
     Kerrey proposal for a 10 percent coinsurance on home health 
     services is a new ``sick tax'' on the elderly and disabled.
       In addition, the Kerrey proposal would income-relate the 
     Medicare part B premium. Such action does nothing to control 
     spiraling health care costs, but simply shifts these costs on 
     to Medicare beneficiaries. Moreover, the proposal is also 
     unfair in that it treats beneficiaries receiving health care 
     through Medicare differently from nonbeneficiaries at the 
     same income levels. Non-Medicare higher-income Americans will 
     continue to receive significant Government subsidies through 
     their employers for their health care benefits, since their 
     benefits remain fully tax deductible for their employers and 
     do not count as taxable income for employees.
       If Congress wants to impose income-related restrictions on 
     tax subsidized health benefits, then it should do so across 
     the board for everyone whose health care benefits are 
     supported by the taxpayers. In short, if income-related 
     health care for the elderly is a good idea, then it is a good 
     idea for the rest of society.
       As you will recall, we have been down this road before, but 
     at least the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act included new 
     benefits. The Kerrey amendment does not and the reaction from 
     seniors will surely reflect this.
       For over a decade, we have tried to control rising deficits 
     by cutting Medicare spending. This has proven to be a 
     profoundly unsuccessful strategy because it fails to address 
     the root causes of escalating health care costs that are 
     driving the deficit. Moreover, it has resulted in more cost-
     shifting to the private sector. Only comprehensive health 
     care reform that addresses health care costs on a systemwide 
     basis can achieve real and sustainable deficit reduction. The 
     Kerrey plan will not only fail to achieve real long-term 
     sustainable deficit reduction but will also jeopardize the 
     best chance we have to get real long-term deficit reduction 
     through comprehensive reform of our health care system.
       AARP urges you to oppose the Kerrey amendment. If you have 
     any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please 
     call me or ask your staff to call our Federal Affairs 
     Department at (202) 434-3760. Sincerely, Horace B. Deets.

  Well, there is the record from AARP and it opposes the amendment by 
Mr. Kerrey.
  Finally, Madam President--I hope all Senators will listen to this 
because it is going to affect all Senators--it is my understanding that 
without additional funds, FEMA will be forced to suspend work on all 
non-people-related projects throughout the Nation--not just in 
California, but also throughout the Nation--in order to concentrate 
their remaining funds on the people-related needs of those affected by 
the earthquake.
  Madam President, it is my understanding that the grants process for 
reconstruction and repair of the highways affected by the earthquake 
will cease if this bill is not enacted into law by the end of this 
week.
  Furthermore, it is not just California. There is nearly $1 billion in 
here for Midwest flood victims--Midwest flood victims.
  Madam President, I ask for order in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Senator has 
just 10 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask that the time to secure order not come out of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the regular order. The Senate will be 
in order.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I hope that Senators 
will vote for my motion to table the amendment. This bill needs to go 
to conference fast--tonight or tomorrow. I ask for the yeas and nays on 
the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I wonder if the distinguished President 
pro tempore will give me 60 seconds to make one last statement.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I do not have any time left, do I? But I 
ask unanimous consent----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nebraska may 
have 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Madam President, I merely say to my colleagues who are 
deciding to vote, I think their concerns about the supplemental are 
appropriate.
  The distinguished Senator from Georgia raised concern about double 
counting. We have declared and disclosed the possibility of that double 
counting. Since nothing has been enacted, we include it. It was 
disclosed all the way along that if the crime bill is enacted, we will 
allow that money to go to it. We have made no intent to double count.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to what the distinguished President 
pro tempore said both in the beginning and the end. In the beginning, 
there is nothing to this amendment, and in the end, there is so much 
that we are standing here with a letter from AARP saying vote against 
it.
  It is a tough amendment. It requires us to have the courage, in my 
judgment, to finally say no to some people in order to get not only 
health care costs under control but get our deficit under control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], to 
lay on the table amendment No. 1440, offered by the Senator from 
Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
absent because of illness.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and 
the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--31

     Baucus
     Boren
     Brown
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     DeConcini
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Mack
     McCain
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Robb
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Mikulski
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________