[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on or
in relation to the Dodd amendment occur at 2:15 today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object. I do not think we are
going to use all of the time in opposition, because I am concerned
about whether we are going to be able to get this resolution completed
on time. If every amendment uses 1 hour on each side, I do not think we
are going to get there on time. Many Senators will be let down, because
they will not have a chance. We may yield back some time. If we agree
with the unanimous consent request and do not use all of the time, can
we begin another amendment in the intervening time, so as to
accommodate the 2:15 vote?
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I have no objection to that. How much time
is remaining on the Dodd amendment?
Mr. DODD. Why do we not move along and see if it comes to that. A
couple colleagues came by and asked how long this would be, because
they had to be off the Hill. You might want to check with some people.
Some of our colleagues are working on an assumption.
Mr. DOMENICI. I really want him to get the 2:15 time. I will add a
sentence and see if it meets everybody's approval. If, however, we
finish debate on the pending amendment prior thereto, that the next
amendment in order be called up and debate commence on it, and
nonetheless that debate will cease at 2:15 so we can vote on the
pending amendment.
Mr. SASSER. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that on
disposition of the Dodd-Jeffords amendment, Senator Boxer be recognized
to offer an amendment regarding children's programs, and that upon
disposition of the Boxer amendment, Senator Lott be recognized to offer
an amendment regarding defense, nondefense walls, and mandatory
spending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Were we going to agree on a time on that Boxer
amendment?
Mr. SASSER. I am advised that Senator Boxer is willing to do 20
minutes equally divided.
I will amend my unanimous-consent request to provide that the time on
the Boxer amendment not exceed 20 minutes, to be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SASSER. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that no second-
degree amendments be in order on the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could we get two things in addition,
that there would be no second-degree amendments to the Lott amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I have not seen it yet.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will withdraw that.
Mr. HARKIN. Yesterday, when this Senator tried to offer an amendment,
we had this little thing. I do not want to preclude the fact that I may
want to second degree that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can we add that when the amendments have been disposed
of--however they are disposed of--the Senator from New Mexico be
recognized to offer an amendment?
Mr. SASSER. Let us discuss that. I am advised by staff that there may
be an amendment that we want to bring up on our side before proceeding
to the Domenici amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
Mr. HARKIN. Can I ask the manager for some time?
Mr. SASSER. The manager of the amendment, Senator Dodd, is
controlling the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield my colleague from Iowa 5 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I rise in support of
the amendment by Senators Dodd and Jeffords.
The amendment transfers $6 billion in fiscal year 1995 to the IDEA,
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, first established in
1975.
As chairman of the subcommittee that funds education programs, IDEA
has always been among my highest priorities, and I am proud of the
increases we have achieved. However, our ability to appropriate funds
for IDEA programs is limited by the allotment that is provided to my
subcommittee.
This amendment will make it more likely that thousands of children
with disabilities will receive the education they are entitled to under
the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the comparable
provision included in every State constitution in this Nation.
I want to do two things with my time. I want to explain why the
program is a good investment. Second, I also want to make it clear, in
the strongest possible terms, that IDEA, the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act, is not an unfunded mandate. The idea that
Congress imposed a mandate to educate children with disabilities on
States and local districts and then refused to pay for it is just plain
wrong.
Instead, the right of children with disabilities to a free
appropriate public education is a constitutional right established in
the early 1970's by two landmark Court cases: Pennsylvania Association
for Retarded Children versus Commonwealth in 1971 and Mills versus
Board of Education of the District of Columbia in 1972. In both of
those decisions, the Supreme Court made it clear that the
responsibility for educating individuals with disabilities rests with
States and local school districts.
The House and Senate reports that accompanied the 1975 statute show
that its drafters were largely guided by the principles laid down in
these Court cases. The enforceable right to a free, appropriate public
education is a constitutional right, not a mandate from Congress.
What we have said in those intervening years is that we sympathize
with the States and local school districts and we will help them in
meeting their constitutional duties.
The Supreme Court recognized this in a 1983 decision in which it
quoted from the Senate report, which said:
It is the intent of the Committee to establish and protect
the right to education for all handicapped children and to
provide assistance to the States in carrying out their
responsibilities under State law and the Constitution of the
United States to provide equal protection under the laws.
So let us be clear about this. I know special education is expensive.
No one works harder than I do to increase Federal funding to help the
States meet their responsibilities. But a free, appropriate public
education is not an unfunded mandate. It is a basic right guaranteed by
the Federal and State constitutions of this country.
So I wanted to make that clear.
I also want to make it clear that I believe we in the Congress have a
responsibility to help the States in meeting their constitutional
requirements, which is what this amendment does and why I am supporting
this amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that every
child receives that education.
I want to join with my colleague from Minnesota who pointed out a
little bit ago to my friend and my colleague from Iowa for whom I have
the greatest respect and friendship, and he knows that. When he said
that spending is spending, I am sorry spending is not spending in every
case. I mean we can either spend smart or we can spend stupid. If we do
not put money into early childhood education for individuals with
disabilities, then later on we are going to spend a heck of a lot more
money taking care of them. Let me just give a couple examples.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HARKIN. Could I have 3 more minutes?
Mr. DODD. Could I inquire how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 20 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I yield 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 additional
minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have talked a lot about Danny Piper, a
young man with Down's syndrome from Ankeny, IA. Some 20 years ago when
Danny was born, doctors told his parents that Danny should be
institutionalized because of severe mental retardation. They said his
condition was hopeless. Fortunately, Danny's parents rejected this
recommendation. Instead, they helped Danny take advantage of early
intervention and preschool services, which allowed him to ultimately
move to the regular classroom, where he not only did very well but also
became involved in community service activities. I should also mention
that on July 26, 1990, Danny joined me on the White House lawn for the
signing of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Today, Danny is 23 years old and works 20 hours a week at the Ingram
Corp., the largest national distributor of videotapes and compact
discs. Danny duplicates tapes and discs and packages them for
distribution. He makes $6 an hour, loves his job, and has not missed a
day of work in years. Danny also works out regularly at the local YMCA,
and has even hired a personal trainer with his own money.
Danny is grown up now, and like most 23-year-olds, doesn't want to
live with his parents anymore. So he is now working to find his own
apartment. Last week Danny's parents met with an individual who might
be willing to be Danny's roommate. To try out this new relationship,
Danny is planning to take a trip to Disney World with his potential
roommate.
Remember, this is an individual whom doctors pronounced ``hopeless''
23 years ago. And they recommended institutionalizing him before he
ever got a chance to show what he could do. Danny's achievements go far
beyond any financial calculation--just ask his parents. But since we
are here today to talk about money, consider this: Danny's special
education services have cost about $63,000, and he is now a working,
contributing, taxpaying member of society--in other words, he will more
than repay this investment in him and his personal development. On the
other hand, if Danny's parents had listened to the doctors, the costs
of institutionalizing Danny would have been almost $5 million over his
lifetime. That's more than 70 times the cost of his special education.
This is how our investment in special education pays off. Special
education works, and it's one investment we truly can't afford not to
make.
As chair of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I recently held an
oversight hearing in Iowa regarding the status of special education. I
will never forget the testimony of Danette Crawford at the hearing.
Danette, who is now in the 10th grade, has severe cerebral palsy. She
received early intervention services beginning at the age of 8 months,
and now attends her neighborhood school and receives all her education
in a regular classroom with the assistance of an associate.
I asked her what she was looking forward to in the future, and she
told us of her desire to attend an Ivy League school. She also told us:
I'd like to educate people, people with disabilities and
other people that are minorities that might be considered
``different'' from regular people. And if I can make a
difference, then that's my goal in life.
What Danette's testimony tells us is that people with disabilities
really aren't different from everyone else. Most kids who work hard in
school dream of attending Harvard or Yale or Princeton. And most kids
want a career that will help them make a difference in the world.
Special education helps make sure that children with disabilities, who
have the same dreams as you and I, have the same opportunities to reach
those dreams.
Danny and Danette have done well through their own efforts and with
the help of special education services. Though there are thousands of
success stories like theirs, we also know that too many students with
disabilities don't fare as well.
The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education
Students documents that we still have a long way to go in meeting the
needs of children with disabilities. This study showed that:
Students with disabilities are more likely than not to experience
difficulties in school, such as failing grades, absenteeism, and being
held back a grade;
Students with disabilities are much more likely to drop out of school
than their nondisabled peers. Of youth aged 15 to 20 years, 43 percent
of youth with disabilities were dropouts, compared to 24 percent of
youth in the general population; and
Young people with disabilities also are much less likely to pursue
postsecondary education or to achieve competitive employment than their
nondisabled peers.
These data show that when we fail to provide children with
disabilities with the special education and related services to which
they are entitled, we not only deprive them of their right to maximize
their potential like their nondisabled peers, we also increase the
likelihood that we, as a nation, will ultimately pay billions of
dollars in increased dependency costs in the form of welfare payments.
So when my colleague from Iowa says spending is spending, I beg to
differ. We can invest this money in the Danny Pipers of this country
and give them the support and the early education they need so they can
be self-sufficient, so they can work, so they can live by themselves,
whatever it might be, or we can institutionalize them.
If we take the course offered by my colleague from Iowa and say, no,
we are not going to invest in early childhood education for kids with
disabilities, then it is going to cost them a lot more money unless we
are going to say forget it, and we just throw them out in the street
and let them die. We are not going to do that. We are a caring Nation.
So let us do it smarter.
What Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords are saying is let us invest
our money a little bit smarter. Let us put it into these kids early on
in their lives so we can have the Danny Pipers of the world who will be
out earning their own way. Their lives will be better. Their families'
lives will be better and, quite frankly, we are going to save the
taxpayers a ton of money.
So I compliment Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords for their
amendment, and it ought to be passed by those who want to see us
actually save money.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Wellstone of Minnesota, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, and
Senator Harkin of Iowa as cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls 30
minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Nunn is on the floor. I yield 5 minutes to
Senator Nunn.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
Madam President, as we all know the budget resolution does not cut
specific programs and it is going to be up to the Department of Defense
to take a look at the lower line of the budget if it comes out lower
and make recommendations about any exchanges that have to be made in
the Armed Services Committee and the Armed Services Committee and the
Appropriations Committees will determine which programs are cut.
So make no mistake about it, and whether you are for or against
Milstar you are not cutting Milstar on the floor here today. You may be
indicating that is what you think will be done, but the decision on
that will be made by the two committees and then by the Senate as a
whole when we bring up the Authorization Committee and the
Appropriations Committee bill.
So what we are doing today is simply another cut in defense and
shifting it to domestic programs. This can go on and on, and this is
why we should have firewalls. But, of course, we have every right on
the budget resolution to make these distinctions, and this is the place
it ought to be settled. Once it is settled here, then it ought to be
settled for the year. And I would hope that this debate would indicate
that and I would hope that later on in this debate we will be able to
address a firewalls amendment so that cuts in defense would come off
the deficit and not simply be shifted to other programs.
Madam President, I am absolutely sure that the Senator from
Connecticut has a worthy program in mind when he shifts these funds. I
hope we vote against this amendment. I do think that arguments against
Milstar, even though we really are not cutting Milstar here, it is just
a notional kind of way of taking money from defense and putting it in
domestic programs. But the Milstar arguments I have heard have in many
areas been totally erroneous and basically attack Milstar as it was 3
years ago and not as it is now.
The Armed Services Committee had many of the same objections that I
have heard on the floor to the Milstar program. We felt it was geared
too much to the cold war. We felt that the Milstar program was geared
far too much to surviving a nuclear conflict, an all-out nuclear war,
on a worldwide basis.
That is the reason our Armed Services Committee zeroed the program
out in our bill. We zeroed it out and then we got the Department of
Defense in the conference to agree to very substantial changes in the
Milstar program.
So the attack we have heard today has been against the Milstar
program as it existed about 3 years ago and has almost nothing to do
with the Milstar program as it is now.
What was changed? One thing that was changed according to all the
records and this is indisputable--this is not a question of fact--our
committee insisted that the special survivability capabilities of all-
out nuclear war be substantially and virtually completely eliminated
because we did not think that was necessary. We felt we could save
money. We also insisted that there be significant reduced
communications capacity to communicate with strategic nuclear forces.
We greatly insisted there be a great expansion of Milstar's
capability to provide rapid and secure communications to our tactical
commanders in the theater.
In short, Madam President, we asked that this program be made and
geared much more to a conventional tactical program and much less to a
nuclear program, and we felt that that was necessary. In total, the
restructuring trimmed Milstar's total program cost by $13 billion. So
this program is a substantially different program than it was 3 years
ago.
Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute, 20 seconds.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Chair.
I would just like to read very quickly here General Shalikashvili's
answer to a question about what Milstar is all about. This is a very
recent dialog in the committee.
General Shalikashvili says, quoting him:
The Milstar system will support theater command and
control, tactical combat forces, unscheduled service for
submarines and special operation forces, and strategic
warning and SIOP execution.
Milstar will satisfy many key requirements critical to
successful military operations by a power-projection force:
Antijam--Milstar communications are virtually immune to
jamming; the message goes through, always.
Covert--Milstar provides low probability of intercept/
detection, use will not compromise submarine, special
operations forces, and other user locations to enemy
listening stations.
Deployability and Mobility--Milstar terminals--
These are the receiving units that will be in the forward areas.
Milstar terminals will deploy using tactical airlift and
move with front-line forces.
Coverage and Connectivity--a complete constellation of four
satellites will assure worldwide access anywhere (except the
polar regions), anytime warfighters need it.
Interoperability:
This has been one of our big problems in tactical communications:
Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines--Milstar will enable
immediate communications between the Services.
Reachback--Milstar will enable communications out of
theater without reliance on foreign-based ground relays
vulnerable to destruction, sabotage, or host nation politics.
* * *
It will also enable the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment
system to provide global communications to commanders on the
move.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this
question and answer be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Question. The first Milstar was recently launched. The plan
is to launch a second Milstar with low data rate, to be
followed by four more satellites with medium data rate
capabilities. General Shalikashvili, can you comment on what
an important asset this will be to our forces?
Answer. Yes, the Milstar system will support theater
command and control, tactical combat forces, unscheduled
service for submarines and special operations forces, and
strategic warning and SIOP execution.
Milstar will satisfy many key requirements critical to
successful military operations by a power-projection force:
Antijam--Milstar communications are virtually immune to
jamming; the message goes through, always.
Covert--Milstar provides low probability of intercept/
detection, use will not compromise submarine, special
operations forces, and other user locations to enemy
listening stations.
Deployability and Mobility--Milstar terminals will deploy
using tactical airlift and move with front-line forces.
Coveage and Connectivity--a complete constellation of four
satellites will assure worldwide access anywhere (except the
polar regions), anytime warfighters need it.
Interoperability: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines--
Milstar will enable immediate communications between the
Services.
Reachback--Milstar will enable communications out of
theater without reliance on foreign-based ground relays
vulnerable to destruction, sabotage, or host nation politics.
As the terminal population increases and the medium data
rate capability is added, Milstar will provide the above
capabilities and more data to combat commanders faster. It
will also enable the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE)
system to provide global communications to commanders on the
move.
In short, Milstar will enable efficient synchronization of
combat power and will not be vulnerable to enemy efforts to
deny us this capability. No other satellite system in
existence can provide the flexibility and assurance of
uninterruptable, communications of Milstar.
Mr. NUNN. Madam President, in short, the Milstar Program is the heart
of our ability to communicate in the field with tactical units and to
be able to have those units linked not only with each other but back to
the field commanders. It is the heart of one of our great advantages in
terms of America's position in the world now, and that is the ability
to communicate with modern technology.
So I would argue against this amendment on two grounds. One is that
the Milstar Program itself is an important part of our military
capability; and, second, this is just another way of taking money out
of defense and putting it in a domestic program. As important as that
program is--and I am sure, knowing the Senator from Connecticut, that
it is important--I do not believe we should continue to deplete our
military forces.
We are bringing them down very rapidly. We have reduced the military
forces by one-third in the last 10 years. We have reduced its overall
purchasing power. We still have danger spots in the world. All we have
to do is read the daily papers to understand that.
I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues. I urge the defeat of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I yield whatever time my colleague from Tennessee desires.
Mr. SASSER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, this amendment, I think, is a splendid
bipartisan effort on the part of the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Dodd] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] to do something about
the urgent problem of education in this country today.
The Dodd-Jeffords amendment will add $30.5 billion to function 500
for education and it cuts $9.5 billion from function 050, the defense
function of the budget. The amendment also spends some of the money
from the Exon-Grassley amendment, but what finer way to do it.
This amendment shifts Federal dollars from the military side to the
education side. As we have heard earlier, what it does, it cancels what
is essentially, in my view, a cold war relic--Milstar. It takes a bite
out of the enormous Intelligence Committee budget.
It is an amazing thing to me that, even with the cold war over, the
intelligence budget is still funded at essentially the same level it
was before the collapse of the Soviet Union; and this in the face of
statements made by the leaders of the intelligence community in this
country that at least 60 percent of their budget went to either gather
intelligence against the old Soviet Union or to counteract intelligence
efforts of the old Soviet Union. And even though the old Soviet Union
is no longer there, according to public accounts, we are still spending
in the neighborhood of $30 billion for intelligence.
But the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Vermont
understand where the real problems are and where the real threats are
to this country. And the real threat is that we are not allocating
enough of our investments, we are not investing enough resources in the
most precious resource we have, and that is the children of this
country.
If we invest in education of our children, we are going to reap a
return on that investment that is very, very significant, indeed. If we
continue to spend this money on a relic of the cold war, if we continue
to spend it on intelligence or spies or counterspies or whatever they
do over there at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, what are
we going to get out of that? They can make some economies over there in
that intelligence budget, and we can do without Milstar, but we cannot
do without educating our children.
Let me just remind my friend from Vermont and my friend from
Connecticut, when this country came out of World War II, we passed
something called the GI Bill of Rights. That was the largest investment
to date that this country had ever made in allowing our young people
and veterans coming out of that war to go to a college or university;
the greatest commitment of resources we had ever made. And some
criticized it.
But what was the result? In many, many families, the overwhelming
number of them, the first person to get a college education in that
family, ever, got it through the GI Bill of Rights.
And what about that investment? When those young men and women
started coming out of those colleges in the late forties and the early
fifties, they precipitated the greatest economic expansion this country
had ever seen, with their expertise in engineering, in physics, in all
of the sciences and in the social sciences. Our country was infinitely
better off culturally, socially, economically, and stronger in every
way because of that investment in education.
Well, this very splendid bipartisan amendment that we have before us
today, offered by our friend from Connecticut and our friend from
Vermont, does essentially the same thing and tracks down the same
course. And what these Senators are saying is: We need to invest more
in education. We can afford to invest less in exotic military hardware
and less in the gumshoe business in this time in which we live now.
I commend them and congratulate them for working together in a
bipartisan way to bring this very fine amendment to the floor. I
suspect if the parents and the teachers of this country could come to
this Senate today and vote, by an overwhelming margin the parents and
teachers of this country would vote for the Dodd-Jeffords amendment. I
thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains on each side of this
issue?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut controls 8
minutes and 18 seconds; the Senator from New Mexico controls 24
minutes.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from New Mexico,
if he is within earshot, as to whether or not they intend to yield back
the remainder of their time? We can wrap-up here very quickly and then
move to the next amendment. I do not want to yield back all the time
and then have 24 minutes be used in opposition to the amendment.
Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, first of all I commend the chairman of
the Budget Committee for a very excellent statement which puts things
in perspective.
I would like to make my colleagues aware that investment in 1947 to
meet the education crisis of that time, was about $30 billion in
constant dollars today. Back in those days, that was a lot of money and
a big percentage of the budget. It raised the percentage of Federal
spending in education from about the percentage we are at now to 10
percent.
I think it is important to recognize that, because that was the kind
of commitment which paid off so much for this Nation in its ability to
reconstruct, not only this country, but also to assist with the
educational capacity of the rest of the world. It was a big factor in
bringing down the Berlin Wall and ending the cold war.
Second, we are in a crisis, and I will speak more about that later if
we have time. But let me quote from the 1983 At-Risk Report by the
Reagan administration.
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on
America the mediocre educational performance that exists
today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
I cannot overemphasize in my opinion, and the opinion of businessmen
and educators across the country, that is an accurate description of
where our educational system is today.
When I first came to the Senate and was on the Education Committee, a
group of CEO's, the Business Roundtable, came to me and asked me to
meet with them. I expected they would talk to me about the problems of
taxation and the problems of resources and all those sort of things in
the industrial world. What they asked me, was to do what I could to
fully fund the Head Start Program. They recognized, as we must
recognize, that unless we start at that early age--whether it is for
those with disadvantages or not--we will not end the problems of
education that threaten this Nation economically and socially.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Madam President, if my colleague would like an additional 2
minutes I will be glad to yield it to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I would like to emphasize another aspect.
My colleague from Connecticut outlined the impact we have had on
special education and the impact we have had on property taxes that
relate to it. My town meetings just finished in March of this year. In
my own school district, only 2 of 10 towns were able to pass the school
budget. The whole crisis revolved around the increased costs of special
education.
Whether it will mean a reduction in property taxes or not, I assure
my colleagues what we do today will reduce the burden on property taxes
and at least not make them any more burdensome than they are.
We used to have balanced programs in our school. Senator Javits, who
many Members here remember well, established years ago a program for
the gifted and talented. That was a good program and it balanced things
out. It said we have gifted and talented young people in this country
who need to be brought to their fullest performance levels. We
dedicated resources to that.
But since the burden has been placed on special education in these
older communities, and in the States, that money being spent for our
gifted and talented has shrunk so far that out of the $247 billion we
spend on the K through 12 programs now, only $9 million of Federal
funds are provided to the gifted and talented. That has created a
crisis for us as we look to the future, recognizing that only if we
bring our talented students forward can we maintain the kind of
educational capacity that we need to provide the brains to the Nation's
corporations that will make the country what we want it to be in the
next century.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. The Senator from New Mexico is here on the floor. I would
say to my colleague from New Mexico, if he cares to wrap-up and then we
can move onto the next amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, could we have a minute quorum call? I wanted
to engage in a conversation.
Mr. DODD. I do not mind, counting it against the Senator's time,
because we are almost out of time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Oh, yes. Counting it as my time.
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. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, so Senators will know, we are going to
be through in about 6 minutes. Then Senator Boxer is going to lay down
her amendment pursuant to the previous request.
There are not very many Senators in this body that I have more
respect for and work more closely with on a number of issues than
Senator Dodd. But, frankly, I think the arguments have been made as to
why we should not adopt this amendment-- let me just repeat them in my
own language, as I understand things. I say to my good friend from
Connecticut, if in fact his amendment was adopted, I regret to tell him
that there is very little probability that education program that he so
much is working for, he and Senator Jeffords from Vermont--that part of
education that has that mandate on it that requires the States and
localities to put so much resource in it--there is little probability
that discretionary money, having been put back, will go to those
accounts.
I know that is my view. The Senator is very welcome when he stands up
to say what his view is. But, frankly, I think it is time to play
square with everybody about moving this discretionary money around as
if it was meaningful. It may come as a shock for Senators to know, but
in my quest for information I found since the Budget Act was adopted,
two times in the history of 20 years have the appropriators adopted the
functional totals that appear in budget resolutions.
That is big language. What does it mean? It means the priorities set
in the budget resolution or amended on the floor and put in the budget
resolution, are an expression of desire, nothing more. Because only
twice have the appropriators, when they took the dollars and doled them
out to the subcommittees, which is their prerogative under current law,
have they looked at the function ``education,'' which my good friend is
amending--and if he were to win, there would be a dollar number in that
function which, if the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from
Vermont have their way in appropriations--they would say put all this
new money in this program. The truth of the matter is only twice in 20
years has that function been transferred right over and funded exactly
at the levels suggested by the budget resolution.
So I do not think--as much as the two Senators on the floor espousing
this speak of the desperate and dire need--I do not think everybody
need construe it as an amendment that indeed dramatically increases the
Federal share of aid for special education.
It will add to the discretionary accounts and be made available for
the appropriators to spend in discretionary or defense accounts so long
as they meet the cap.
The Senators can say nonetheless it is a very important vote; it does
put back half of the deficit savings of the Exon amendment. That is
undisputed. So we will save that much less in terms of the next 5 years
as we apply this budget resolution. Now that will happen because that
is part of the caps which must be enforced in their totality. So it
will happen.
Second, I just want to say, it is fairly easy to take an amendment
and say I want something that is very important, that everybody is
going to think is very important, and I want to take some money out of
defense to do it. I fault nobody for that, other than to say, again, it
does not always happen that way, even if you vote for it in this
manner. But I am going to assume that the sponsors are serious about
that and, therefore, I just say the President of the United States
happens to be right; he does not think we ought to cut defense anymore.
He made an eloquent plea for it in his State of the Union Address. In
fact, I think he said it three different ways, that we had cut defense
enough, do not cut it anymore.
My suggestion is that the Senators who want more funding in this
special education ought to start fighting very quickly for more funds
in the appropriations process. And they might be surprised. They might
get more funds even if this amendment is not adopted, because it is
strictly up to the appropriators as to whether they do it or not.
I yield the floor and yield back any time I might have.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 22 seconds.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me wrap up here. 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. DODD. Madam President, let me respond to my colleague from New
Mexico. With the adoption of the Exon-Grassley amendment, defense is
going to be adversely affected regardless of whether or not this
amendment is approved.
Let me say to my colleague from New Mexico, the Senator from Iowa,
who chairs the Labor-HHS Appropriations subcommittee and who doles out
the money for special education, is a cosponsor of this amendment. I
agree that unless Members decide to back what we are doing in the
appropriations process, he is right, we are in trouble. I know of no
other way to further that cause than to establish our priorities
collectively in the budget process. By doing so we, as a body, may
speak and say this is important. The fact that the chairman of the
committee who will make the decision on the final funding issues is a
cosponsor of the amendment, I think enhances our chances.
But more important is the substance of what we are talking about:
Property taxes, the American dream of owning a home. Here we have a tax
at the local level which is growing in leaps and bounds. The pressure
on the local communities is staggering. This amendment says that
additional Federal resources should go to try to reduce the local and
State commitment that is presently taxing them so much, and have the
Federal Government live up to its commitments. We are not even close to
meeting our commitment.
If we speak with one voice here, if the Senator from New Mexico, my
good friend, would support me on this amendment--he sits on the
Appropriations Committee--with his backing and the backing of the
Senator from Iowa, we might do something for local property taxpayers.
He is right; we cannot guarantee it. But if my colleagues say this is
important today, I am willing to bet we will get it done in the
appropriations process. But if we walk away from it, he is right, we
will go off and spend the money someplace else and the local property
taxpayer, once again, will be hit between the teeth. Here is an
opportunity to provide relief.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
increased funding for special education in budget resolution
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, we had a vote today to increase special
education funding, and I voted against it. I was not happy about that.
Since coming to the Senate 25 years ago, I have been a vigorous
advocate on behalf of people with disabilities.
Indeed, in 1975 I voted for the original Education For All
Handicapped Children Act, which sought for the first time to ensure
that students with a disability had equal opportunity for an education.
In that legislation, Congress made a promise to help our Nation's
schools with the high cost of educating children with disabilities. We
said we would pick up 40 percent of the extra costs. But our
followthrough has been dismal. This year we came through with a
whopping 8 percent. That's right, 8 percent. The net result is that
today we are shortchanging our Nation's schools by almost $8 billion a
year.
Madam President, I would have voted for this measure if the offsets
were acceptable. I regret that no one approached me or my staff as this
amendment was being developed, because together we might have arrived
at some agreement. Next time I hope we can work together.
Madam President, I also want to make another point. We could have
fully funded our special education promise a long time ago if we would
focus on our proper responsibilities. But instead of paying for what is
due before starting something new, the Senate has gone on an education
spending spree. Over just the last 9 months, we passed National
Service, Goals 2000, Safe Schools Act, and School to Work. In total,
the Senate has voted to authorize over $4 billion in new spending.
In fact, if we paid for special education as promised, schools would
have far more money themselves to pay for reforms and new programs they
need.
Madam President, it is past time we got our education house in order.
Next time when we are tempted to vote in favor of some new and maybe
even worthwhile program, let us remember what our priorities should be.
And in my view, special education funding should be one of our top
education priorities.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to oppose the Dodd
amendment and in support of the Milstar Program.
I do not oppose increasing Federal funding for special education
programs. In fact, in the past I have voted in favor of resolutions
calling on Congress to increase the Federal contribution to educating
children with disabilities. However, I do not think that this increase
in funding should come at the expense of the Milstar Program and U.S.
national security.
And, Defense Secretary Perry and the Joint Chiefs of Staff also agree
that Milstar is important to U.S. national security and strongly
support the program.
Let me read a quote from Secretary Perry.
Some people consider Milstar a cold war relic. We have
totally, beginning already with the Bush Administration and
continuing under this Administration, completely reconfigured
that system so that many of the factors which made it so
expensive--which is the ability to withstand nuclear blasts
and so on--those features no longer exist in Milstar. What
does exist in Milstar is the ability to connect our tactical
units worldwide with high quality, high resolution, digital
data, so they can pass demands back and forth, they can pass
targeting data, they can pass intelligence information, and
it does it in such a way which is highly resistant to
interference, such as jamming.
So, Milstar is no longer a cold war relic that was designed to meet
strategic threats, such as a nuclear war. In fact, Milstar will be used
in many tactical environments. The whole point of producing the 1,200
remote Milstar terminals is so our troops in the field can communicate
directly with other forces and commanders anywhere in the world.
Under a conventional war scenario that the Department of Defense ran
in the Middle East--a scenario similar to the Persian Gulf war--more
than 70 percent of all military communications would use Milstar
satellites. So, this is not a relic of the cold war.
As the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said, there is a definite military
requirement for the Milstar Program. In fact, the bottom-up review
states that ``the military requirement for a jam-resistant advanced EHF
communications system providing capability equivalent to Milstar II was
reaffirmed early in the process.''
But, costs were also considered in the bottom-up review. The report
goes on to state that ``another important objective was to identify
options that offered substantial cost savings relative to the current
Milstar Program.''
In fact, since the original Milstar Program was established, $20
billion has been trimmed off the cost of the program--that is almost
half the costs. This includes reductions as a result of the bottom-up
review that analyzed four different options for savings.
Would canceling the Milstar Program save some money? Yes, but at what
cost to national security. According to Secretary Perry and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff--who have already reviewed the program and made
substantial cost reductions--the threat to national security by
terminating the Milstar Program would be extremely high.
In addition, cancellation of this program would result in the loss of
8,000 direct jobs nationwide. More than half of these job losses would
come from California--a State that has already been adversely affected
by defense downsizing with the loss of 250,000 defense-related jobs in
just the last few years.
I support cutting Government spending and favor efforts to reduce the
deficit. In fact, the budget resolution, as reported out of committee,
already cuts an additional $43.2 billion in discretionary spending over
5 years.
I also plan to continue supporting funding for special education
programs. But, I can not support this particular amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to this
amendment. The Dodd amendment seeks to do something very good. I simply
cannot support the way it does that good.
The Dodd amendment would transfer $6 billion to special education in
fiscal year 1995 and $30.5 billion over the next 5 years. I support
that transfer. It is imperative that children with special needs get an
appropriate and full education. However, meeting the unique needs of
all special education students is a costly goal. State and local
governments--who provide the lion's share of education expenses--are
stretched thin just providing basic education services. They
desperately need Federal help to also meet our obligations to special
needs children.
I also support transferring money from defense spending to special
education funding--which the Dodd amendment proposes. We can spend all
the money in the world on defense, but our Nation will not be strong
unless our children are strong. And our children will not be strong
unless they receive education that is appropriate to their special
needs.
What I do not support in the Dodd amendment--and what will cause me
to vote against it--is that it cuts in half the so-called Exon-Grassley
discretionary spending decrease. As you all know, in the Budget
Committee, an amendment was agreed to that cut an extra $26 billion
over 5 years. These new spending cuts are substantially more than
recommended by the President and substantially more than a freeze would
require. Last year, we appropriated $550 billion in nonentitlement
funds. If this resolution passes, we will appropriate $540 billion--and
stick at that level for the next 5 years.
I support these new cuts. They are enforceable. They are reasonable.
And they respond to the desire of the American people to see
congressional spending go down. I cannot support an amendment that goes
back on these cuts.
And I must say, I do not believe that going back on these cuts is
necessary. We could, as Senator Dodd suggests, cut Milstar. We could
cut intelligence funding. We could cut other military programs and put
the money into special education. We do not need to go back on our
commitment to scale back total appropriated spending in order to fund
the very important priorities supported by this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending
amendment, No. 1561, is set aside until 2:15 p.m. and the Senator from
California [Mrs. Boxer] is recognized to offer an amendment. There will
be 20 minutes equally divided for debate on the Boxer amendment. The
Senator from California.
Amendment No. 1562
(Purpose: To increase funding for children's programs)
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am indeed honored to offer this
amendment. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr.
Leahy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dorgan, and Ms. Moseley-Braun,
proposes an amendment numbered 1562.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 17, line 22, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
On page 24, line 17, increase the amount by $320,000,000.
On page 24, line 18, increase the amount by $48,000,000.
On page 25, line 1, increase the amount by $171,000,000.
On page 25, line 9, increase the amount by $99,000,000.
On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
On page 26, line 9, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $178,000,000.
On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by $42,000,000.
On page 30, line 20, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
On page 30, line 21, increase the amount by $91,000,000.
On page 31, line 3, increase the amount by $9,000,000.
On page 41, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 41, line 12, decrease the amount by $499,000,000.
On page 41, line 19, decrease the amount by $358,000,000.
On page 42, line 1, decrease the amount by $141,000,000.
On page 42, line 8, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. BOXER. I understand under the unanimous-consent agreement that I
have 10 minutes; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. May I proceed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California may proceed.
Mrs. BOXER. At this time, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the amendment that I have sent to the
desk is a pay-as-you-go amendment. Under my amendment, we cut $1
billion from nonessential travel across the Federal Government. We then
take those savings and use them for five crucial programs for children.
These children's programs work. I know that you know that from your
experience in Illinois, Madam President, and I certainly know that from
my experience in California.
I ask unanimous consent to add the following cosponsors to my
amendment: Senator Leahy, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dorgan, and
Senator Moseley-Braun.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it is an honor for me to serve on the
Budget Committee. In the House of Representatives I served on the
Budget Committee for 6 years. I like the assignment because on the
Budget Committee, you have a chance to step back and really look at the
spending priorities for our country. It is the larger picture, and it
is a time when we can decide what our priorities should be in the long
run. In other words, it is not the line items we consider, but who we
are as a Nation, and where we are making our investments, and what is
important to us.
People often ask me when I am home in California, and I am sure they
ask you, Madam President: ``Senator, what is your long-range plan to
get this country on the right track?'' For example, they will say,
``What is your long-range plan for fighting crime? We know that you are
tough on crime, we have seen that, we appreciate that, but that doesn't
really speak to the future.''
And then they will say: ``What is your long-range plan for fighting
the drug problem?''
I will answer it in this way: I will say in the short term, we have a
serious problem, we have to get tough, crack down and send no mixed
messages. But if we are really talking about the future, and we are
talking about finding solutions for the problems that we have, and
building a new society, one that is less violent, one that really has
as its hallmark the inclusion of everyone, we need to honor our
children. We need to invest in our children. We need to understand how
important they are to society. We need our children to be healthy
mentally and physically if they are to have a stake in this country and
not be alienated from it.
The amendment that I offer, which is a pay-as-you-go amendment, is a
step in that direction. We are talking about investing in the following
five programs: $120 million for Head Start, which will provide Head
Start slots for approximately 24,000 children, Madam President. You and
I know Head Start works. We know it works. We know that the children
who go through Head Start have a much better chance of success than
those who do not.
This amendment will add $200 million for childhood immunization. I
have to say this: It makes no sense to let our infants and children go
without immunizations because for a small cost up front they will not
get the measles, they will not get sick, they will not have brain
damage, and we save a lot more in the long run. This amendment, Madam
President, that you have so graciously offered to cosponsor is clearly
an important investment. We will immunize approximately 2,150,000 more
children than before with the Boxer amendment. We will also add $200
million to the maternal and child health block grant which provides
funding to States for health care for children and pregnant women.
It is crucial in our fight against infant mortality and low
birthweight babies. We add $200 million to the child care development
block grant; 44,000 children will get the child care they need so they
will not be latchkey children; and we add $100 million for the WIC
program, which provides nutrition to low-income, pregnant women,
infants, and children. We know it works. We have to have healthy
babies. If we do not have healthy babies, we are making a terrible
mistake for the future. My amendment will increase the level of
participation and provide services to 200,000 pregnant women, infants
and children.
Finally, Madam President, we give a $180 million increase to TEFAP,
The Emergency Food Assistance Program which feeds the hungry and the
homeless in our communities. Unfortunately, many of the hungry and
homeless are increasingly children and families.
Madam President, around here you throw around a billion dollars like
it does not mean much, but when it comes to programs for children, it
means a lot.
We must do this. Yes, it is true that we are cutting back on the
travel accounts across the Federal Government. But I do not think it is
so bad if some of our Federal agencies stay put for a while so our
children can move forward. I think that this amendment will have broad
bipartisan support. I am certainly hopeful of that. I am proud to offer
it.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wofford be added as a cosponsor
of the Boxer amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, do I have any time remaining in the 10
minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. BOXER. Or I would offer it to my chairman if he would like to
enter into the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. SASSER. I thank the Senator from California. I simply wish to
commend her for offering this splendid amendment. I think her
suggestion that perhaps some of our Federal officials could stay put so
our children could move ahead is a suggestion well made, indeed.
These programs which the Boxer amendment would boost have been
heralded many times on the Senate floor--the Head Start program, the
Women, Infants and Children Feeding Program, and childhood
immunizations. The common denominator of these programs is the high
rate of return they offer for a relatively small investment.
I congratulate the Senator from California for offering this
amendment. It just makes sense to vaccinate a child rather than having
to care for a polio victim. It just makes economic sense. And of
course, there is much, much more to it than that.
I share my colleague's enthusiasm for the WIC Program. It is a
program that is exceedingly cost efficient. It has been proven over the
years that we can save literally millions of dollars by treating babies
that might be the result of undernourished mothers or children that are
undernourished through the WIC Program. I think it is a fine amendment
that the Senator from California offers, and I commend her for it.
One in five children in this country now lives in poverty. We have
made enormous progress over the past 30 or 40 years in dealing with the
problems of our older citizens; 50 years ago it was our older citizens
who were living in poverty. Now we have reversed that to some extent
with Social Security, Medicare, and a whole host of programs for our
older citizens. But it is our children now who live in poverty. It is
shocking that 25 percent of the children in this country live in a
family below the poverty level.
What the Senator from California seeks to do in her usual
compassionate and perceptive way is to throw out a longer lifeline to
these children who are in very dire need. I thank her for offering this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my chairman. He leads the Budget Committee in a
way which all America can be proud, and I believe his priorities
certainly reflect the priorities of the Nation. Invest in our children.
It is the right thing to do. In the long run it will help to solve our
problems and save money.
I understand my time has expired, and I look forward to a bipartisan
vote on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, is there no time remaining on the Boxer
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes for the opposition.
Mr. SASSER. But no time for the proponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time remaining for the proponents.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I see no opponents of the amendment
present.
Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has
arrived. He wishes to speak in support of the Boxer amendment. I ask
unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania to speak in support of the
Boxer amendment and the Dodd-Jeffords amendment, as I understand it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator for the allocation of time and the
unanimous consent request.
I do support the Dodd-Jeffords amendment which would add $6 billion
for education grants. This is an amendment which I had discussed with
both the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Vermont in terms
of increasing education funding.
In my capacity as ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Labor,
Health, Human Services, and Education, where I work with Senator
Harkin, the funding for education is grossly insufficient and the
allocation for that subcommittee, where we have to make the division
among items like industrial safety, mine safety, the National
Institutes of Health, and education programs, is extraordinarily
difficult. When the budget allocations are finally made and they come
into the appropriations process, this money will give us some
substantial additional discretion. I have long believed that the
allocation for that subcommittee ought to be substantially larger.
On the amendment offered by the Senator from California, which would
increase funding in Head Start, child immunization, maternal and child
health care block grants, WIC, and child care, those again are items
which are funded out of the subcommittee where I serve as ranking
Republican, and there is a great shortage of funding in that
subcommittee.
One of the items which has been cut very materially by the
administration is the program for so-called LIHEAP, financial
assistance for energy for low-income families. And while some of those
funds have been reinstated by the Budget Committee, I intend to offer
an amendment later today which would add additional funding for LIHEAP.
Pennsylvania is a very cold State, and every year there are many of
my constituents who write, travel, or call about that allocation. There
are some States which are even colder than Pennsylvania where LIHEAP
funds are necessary.
So that an amendment in the budget allocation, or item such as that
proposed by Senator Dodd, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Boxer, will be
enormously helpful in meeting urgent needs in the Subcommittee on
Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education. And on their face,
these are excellent amendments. When the Senator from California takes
a deduction of 20 percent in travel expenses, that kind of an item is
an attractive line for a budget cut. But I think there can be savings
on items like travel cuts.
The matter of allocation is always difficult. But in the face of the
important programs which are identified here, I think these are
worthwhile amendments.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
Order of Procedure
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
the Boxer amendment occur immediately upon the disposition of the Dodd
amendment. I am advised this has been cleared with the Republican
leadership. There is no objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Correction in Committee Report
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I wish to announce that there was an
error in the committee report regarding the votes on the Lautenberg
amendment to terminate the space station in order to fund law
enforcement. In the committee report on page 227, the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] is incorrectly recorded in the
affirmative. In reality, the Senator from Mississippi voted against the
Lautenberg amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Record show
that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SASSER. For the information of Senators, let me note that under
the previous order, the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] is next or
was next to be recognized to offer an amendment. Under the previous
order, we will have two back-to-back votes beginning at 2:15. The first
will be on the amendment of the Senators from Connecticut and Vermont.
The second will be on the amendment of the distinguished Senator from
California.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous
consent that the time be charged equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from South Dakota be allowed to speak for 3 minutes as in morning
business and that the time be charged against the resolution equally on
both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________