[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Sasser is recognized.


                En Bloc Amendments No. 1569 and No. 1570

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding health service 
delivery and water infrastructure in the Indian Health Service, and for 
                            other purposes.)

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding budget authority 
       and outlay figures for the National Aeronautics and Space 
                            Administration)

  Mr. SASSER. On behalf of Senators Bingaman, Domenici, and Cohen 
respectively, I send two amendments to the desk and ask unanimous 
consent they be immediately considered en bloc; that reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with; that the Senate agree to both amendments; 
that motions to reconsider be laid on the table with respect to both 
amendments; that a statement by Senator Bingaman appear at the 
appropriate place in the Record as if given in full.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Sasser] proposes en bloc an 
     amendment for Mr. Bingaman, for himself and Mr. Domenici, 
     numbered 1569; and, for Mr. Cohen, an amendment numbered 
     1570, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1569

       At the appropriate place in the resolution, insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING HEALTH SERVICE 
                   DELIVERY AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE INDIAN 
                   HEALTH SERVICE.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) sufficient funding should be provided to the Indian 
     Health Service to ensure that Indian Health Service hospitals 
     and outpatient facilities in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this resolution, and Indian Health Service 
     hospitals and outpatient facilities scheduled to open during 
     fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, are fully staffed with the 
     appropriate number of health care professionals needed to 
     meet the health and medical needs of the American Indians and 
     Alaska Natives who depend on the Indian Health Service for 
     health care; and
       (2) sufficient funding should be provided to the Indian 
     Health Service to ensure that the Indian Health Service is 
     capable of meeting basic public health and safety and 
     sanitation requirements on Indian lands through timely and 
     proper water infrastructure construction and upgrades.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1570

       At an appropriate place in the resolution, insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NATIONAL 
                   AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the budget authority and 
     outlay figures for function 250 in this resolution do not 
     assume any amounts for the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration for any fiscal year from 1995 through 1999 in 
     excess of the amounts proposed by the President for such 
     fiscal year.


                           amendment no. 1569

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the sense of 
the Congress regarding the proposed budget for the Indian Health 
Service. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Senator Sasser, and the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee, Senator Domenici, for their assistance and support for this 
amendment.
  Very simply stated, I am offering this amendment because I am 
concerned about the ability of the Indian Health Service to fully meet 
the health care needs of American Indians in my home State of New 
Mexico and throughout the country. The amendment reflects my belief 
that the Congress and the administration should work together toward 
the goal of allocating sufficient funding to the Indian Health 
Service--Health Services Budget--to ensure that all IHS facilities are 
fully staffed with the number of health care professionals needed to 
meet the needs of the American Indians and Alaska Natives who depend on 
the IHS for health care. In addition, the amendment states that 
sufficient funding should be provided to the IHS's facilities budget to 
ensure that basic public health and safety and sanitation requirements 
on Indian lands can be met through timely and proper water 
infrastructure construction and upgrades.
  Over the past few months, many Indian tribal leaders have contacted 
me to express their apprehensions about the administration's decision 
to cut 460 positions--``FTEs''--from the Indian Health Service's staff 
over the next 2 fiscal years. Pueblo Governors and tribal leaders from 
New Mexico have told me that a cut of this magnitude--nearly 8 percent 
of all IHS employees--could irrevocably harm an already inadequate 
system of health care for American Indians unless adequate safeguards 
are in place. As a Senator from New Mexico, I am particularly 
apprehensive about the newly constructed IHS hospital in Shiprock, NM, 
which is scheduled to open this summer. We need to ensure that this 
facility does not open underequipped and understaffed.
  Mr. President, I fully understand the need to bring Federal spending 
under control. But I also share President Clinton's commitment to 
health security for all Americans. It is for this reason that I am 
offering this amendment. My amendment does not guarantee funding, but 
it puts the administration on notice that people are concerned about 
this issue and it represents a commitment by the Congress to properly 
and effectively address IHS funding and staffing matters.
  Too often in the past, the Federal Government has overlooked the 
health care needs of American Indians. As a result, the Indian Health 
Service currently meets only 45 percent of the total estimated health 
care need of our Nation's 1.3 million American Indians and Alaska 
Natives. Of those Indian people who do have access to care through the 
Indian Health Service, many still lack adequate access to the type of 
comprehensive health care embodied in the President's Health Security 
Act, particularly with respect to preventive care.
  Now is not the time to propose cuts in the budget of the Indian 
Health Service. We simply must not let our zeal to lower the Federal 
budget deficit and cut waste from the system do harm to Indian children 
and families. Instead, we should be working to ensure that American 
Indians have access to the basic health services they need. We need to 
be working with Indian people to develop better strategies for 
implementing preventive health programs, including vitally needed 
alcohol abuse prevention programs, and programs aimed at reducing 
diabetes and other chronic diseases among American Indians.
  Mr. President, we know that when access to preventive health care 
services is limited, the consequences in terms of health status and 
economics are significant. Already, American Indians suffer higher 
rates of fetal alcohol syndrome [FAS] and diabetes than any other 
population in the United States. Each year in my own State of New 
Mexico, more than 36 babies are born with FAS, compared to the national 
average of 2 FAS births per 1,000 births. Even more significant, New 
Mexico health officials estimate that the combined FAS rate for our 
State's 22 Indian Tribes is 2 to 5 times that of the national average. 
Statistics on diabetes are also grim. In New Mexico, the rate of 
diabetes is nearly twice the national rate; and nationally, native 
Americans are 10 times more likely to have diabetes than the non-
Hispanic white population.
  In closing, I will reiterate my belief that this is not the time to 
be threatening direct health services and eliminating preventive care 
programs for American Indians. A wiser course of action would be to 
streamline administrative services, eliminate bureaucratic waste, and 
maximize existing resources through the thoughtful, mandatory 
redistribution of personnel and equipment from areas of lesser need and 
low productivity to areas of greater need and potential.
  I believe this amendment will help us achieve these goals. I urge my 
colleagues to support it and to make a commitment to working together 
with Indian people toward a revitalized and efficient Indian Health 
Service truly capable of meeting the health care needs of those it was 
created to service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the en bloc amendments.
  The en bloc amendments (Nos. 1569 and 1570) were agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee.


                 Amendment No. 1567--Unanimous Consent

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I would like to clear up one outstanding 
item.
  I ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the 
language proposed to be stricken by the Domenici amendment, No. 1567.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have an amendment on our side. The 
Senator from Florida is ready to offer it. I yield him 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida. The Senator has the 
time on his own right on his amendment.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1571

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting a balanced 
 budget and the creation of a Spending Reduction Commission to achieve 
                               this goal)

  Mr. MACK. 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 Florida [Mr. Mack], for himself, Mr. 
     Gramm, Mr. Coverdell and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1571.

  Mr. MACK. 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 end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A BALANCED BUDGET AND 
                   THE SPENDING REDUCTION COMMISSION

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Congressional Budget Office has affirmed that 
     reductions in outlays of $34 billion per year below their 
     current baseline will result in a balanced budget by the year 
     2000;
       (2) the Spending Reduction Commission described in S. 1191 
     is a proven mechanism which will provide the necessary 
     reductions in Federal spending required to achieve a balanced 
     budget.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that Federal outlays should be reduced to reflect the 
     aforementioned reductions from the Congressional Budget 
     Office Baseline and that a Spending Reduction Commission 
     should be created to propose annual spending cuts sufficient 
     to reach the yearly spending reduction targets.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to refer to a couple charts before I 
make further comments because I want to set the stage for the reason 
for offering this amendment.
  This first chart shows total spending as calculated by CBO in the 
budget resolution passed last year. It shows the total amount of 
spending for 5 years of $8.364 trillion. If you look at the other bar, 
you will find very little distinction between it and the first bar. 
This is the total spending proposed in the Senate budget resolution 
that we are debating today. It calls for $8.319 trillion in spending 
over 5 years. This is roughly a $45 billion change. This amounts to 
roughly a one-half of 1 percent reduction in spending over a 5-year 
period.
  I heard someone earlier today say in reference to the budget, ``let's 
stay the course.'' The next chart illustrates what happens to the 
deficit under a stay-the-course approach. The deficit for the next 
couple of years will be, in fact, low in relative terms, but it turns 
up in 1998, 1999, and the year 2000, and on and on and on it goes.
  My point is that despite all of the good effort made on both sides of 
the aisle to come together with a proposal to control Federal spending, 
frankly, nothing has happened. It is for this reason that I have 
offered this amendment this morning.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Gramm and 
Hutchison, of Texas, and Senator Coverdell be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, despite all the rhetoric about making the 
tough choices to cut spending, we find overall spending has not been 
substantially affected.
  Last year, CBO projected a fiscal year 1995 deficit of $284 billion. 
One year later, CBO reestimated the fiscal year 1995 deficit at $171 
billion, a decrease of $113 billion. But a quick look at how this was 
achieved will show that the serious job of making tough choices and 
cutting spending hardly is happening at all.
  According to CBO, the drop in the deficit comes from new taxes and 
user fees of $46 billion; technical reestimates, $45 billion; economic 
improvement, $15 billion; spending cuts, $5 billion; debt service, $2 
billion.
  The point is, out of a $113 billion drop in the deficit, only $5 
billion of that is a result of the actions taken to cut Federal 
spending.
  In essence, we have left in place a huge Federal spending machine 
which is the reason that these numbers are going to go back up in 1998, 
1999, 2000 and beyond.
  What really drives the deficit is spending, and we certainly have not 
done nearly enough to cut spending. While it is nice that this year's 
deficit is below estimates, I am concerned that Congress is not taking 
advantage of the good fortune a rebounding economy has given us. From 
all appearances, Congress and the administration are willing to let 
this opportunity pass by and quietly sweep aside further efforts to cut 
spending. Should everyone be satisfied just because good fortune has 
provided us a low in the deficit of $173 billion in fiscal year 1996 
before the deficit again begins its upward path?
  What has happened to the psyche of the American people and the 
Congress? Has Congress operated in the red for so long that it is numb 
about deficits and content with a deficit of $173 billion? What does 
this say about the Congress' sense of fiscal responsibility? I think 
there is clearly cause for alarm.
  We are all greatly concerned about the future that we leave to our 
children and to our grandchildren. The recent House and Senate debates 
on the proposed constitutional amendment for a balanced budget serve as 
a testament to this. Nearly two-thirds of all the Members of the House 
and Senate voted for the balanced budget amendment. The measure was 
defeated because it needed a supermajority vote. But many opponents 
still support a balanced budget. They simply oppose that particular 
mechanism for achieving it.
  Again, I think it is important to repeat that nearly two-thirds of 
the Congress supported a balanced budget amendment. Some of the 
opposition said that a constitutional amendment would wrongly tie the 
hands of Congress. They argued that there is a constitutional 
responsibility of the Congress to control spending. I would suggest the 
Congress had the last 30 years to demonstrate its ability to control 
spending and has miserably failed.
  It is time for the Congress to find a way to balance its books. It is 
time to ``Just Do It.'' I have received literally hundreds of letters 
from constituents who are angry and concerned about the debt we are 
leaving to our future generations. Let me read you a few lines from one 
of those typical letters:

       Dear Senator Mack: I am writing to express my concern about 
     the economic well-being of our country. I'm afraid that we 
     have mortgaged our grandchildren's future in order to finance 
     our Nation's spending habits. I do not think that we can 
     continue to live off the national credit cards in the form of 
     unnecessary Government programs. I believe it is extremely 
     unfair to pass along our debts to our children and our 
     grandchildren's generations. It is imperative that the 
     Congress enact spending cuts to ensure that this country has 
     a balanced budget. Old fashion frugality, which would not 
     affect the health and welfare of our society, would more than 
     balance the budget.

  Mr. President, I am not alone in wanting a balanced budget, nor am I 
alone in advocating the need for serious spending cuts that will help 
us get there. We have had omnibus spending cut packages, such as the 
Kerrey-Brown proposal and the Dole proposal, which many of us 
contributed to and supported. In addition, there have been numerous 
attempts to cut individual spending items, but nothing has succeeded.
  In spite of Congress' track record, almost all of us continue to talk 
about the need for more spending cuts. It would seem to be a truly 
bipartisan theme. The President has also signaled on more than one 
occasion his desire for additional cuts. In last year's State of the 
Union Address, he said:

       To revolutionize our Government, we have to ensure that we 
     live within our means.

  I agree with the President. It is time to revolutionize our 
Government and live within our means. We must restore the faith of the 
American people, who understand we have more than a debt problem and we 
have more than a deficit problem. We have a spending problem.
  If this issue were not so grave, some of the frivolous spending 
examples would indeed seem laughable. Syndicated columnist Dave Barry 
recently wrote about an example that is almost beyond belief. In an 
article which appeared in the March 20, 1994, Washington Post, he 
stated that Congress is funding a research project to create mutant 
constipated worms. Yes, you heard me right. Tax dollars are being used 
for making mutant constipated worms.
  He referred to a Jim Thomas in his article entitled ``The Diet of 
Worms,'' a professor in the genetics department of the University of 
Washington in Seattle. Two astounding comments out of the article read. 
One:

       Jim's research is funded by the U.S. Government. He is 
     spending tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to 
     make constipated worms.

  He goes on further to say:

       I asked Jim Thomas if there was any possibility that the 
     research would ever in a zillion years have any practical 
     benefits for humans. He couldn't think of any offhand, but he 
     allowed that it might conceivably be possible.

  Time and time again, the Congress has attempted to right its fiscal 
course but continually fails to do so. We all remember the budget 
summits of the 1980's which promised so much and delivered so little. 
In every case, the actual deficit has been wildly greater than the 
promised deficit, and the result has been huge increases in the Federal 
debt.
  Congress just does not have the capability to make the tough budget 
choices on its own. When push comes to shove, nobody can agree on 
anything to cut. From all the evidence I have seen, a balanced budget 
is a goal which will elude the Congress so long as we continue the same 
failed procedures to attack the deficit.
  But what happens if we allow the status quo to rule the day? The Tax 
Foundation calculates that if every man, woman, and child were billed 
for a share of the Federal public debt, the bill would come to $13,345 
per person or $53,380 for a family of four, and by 1990, the Foundation 
says those figures will rise to $16,281 a person or $65,124 for a 
family of four.
  To say this in a different way, we will see an explosion of Federal 
debt of 25 to 30 percent by 1999. Let me say that again. In just 5 
short years, our debt will increase between 25 and 30 percent.
  I say this country has a grave problem. It is staring Congress 
straight in the face but many do not seem to realize the problem very 
simply is spending. While much time, energy, and rhetoric has been 
directed toward the problem of our debt, nothing in the way we do 
business has changed. And the Congress continues to demonstrate its 
inability to address the country's spending problem.
  The amendment I offer today is intended to get the Congress back on 
the right track. It establishes the sense of the Senate to achieve a 
balanced budget by the year 2000 by reducing overall spending $34 
billion per year from CBO's current services baseline. This would 
result in a compounded total of $522 billion less in spending over 5 
years. More importantly, this amendment confirms the sense of the 
Senate that these cuts be identified by a special mechanism called a 
Spending Reduction Commission.
  You may ask how, given the track record of the Congress, can we 
possibly ever agree on cuts of this magnitude? Mr. President, I would 
respond that I have very much doubt Congress can do this by itself. But 
I would suggest there is a mechanism which can be used to aid the 
Congress without diminishing its authority. And this mechanism can be 
found in S. 1191, the Spending Reduction Commission, a commission 
modeled after the successful Base Closure Commission. The mechanics of 
its operation are simple and straightforward. No budgetary gimmicks are 
involved--no smoke, no mirrors, just a simple proven mechanism to help 
the Congress do what it is supposed to do, and that is control 
spending.
  Gramm-Rudman was criticized primarily because the sequester was a 
meat ax approach that made across-the-board cuts without establishing 
priorities. Critics said Gramm-Rudman involved no rational thought, no 
choices. This commission is a seven-member body that will make choices 
and establish priorities. The Grace Commission failed because there was 
no mechanism to enforce the recommendations. The Spending Reduction 
Commission has a specific enforcement mechanism that has been tested 
and proven effective through the example of the Base Closure 
Commission.
  The balanced budget amendment failed because people felt it tied 
Congress' hands. The Spending Reduction Commission keeps the ultimate 
decision with Congress. Congress is presented with a single vote, up or 
down, without the ability of individual Members to protect pet programs 
with separate amendments.
  The Spending Reduction Commission, modeled after the Base Closure 
Commission, fuses the best features of Gramm-Rudman and the Grace 
Commission. We simply extend the model to governmentwide spending and 
add a mandated minimum target of spending reductions which the package 
must achieve. The amendment I offer today would require the Congress to 
impose fiscal discipline upon itself.
  I ask that my colleagues support this amendment. Moreover, after its 
adoption, I ask that you join me in enacting this legislation to create 
it.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the demand sustained? Obviously, there 
is a sufficient number. The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for 
some questions?
  Mr. MACK. I will be delighted to yield.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have enjoyed listening to the remarks of 
the Senator from Florida. I thought about this proposal a great deal, 
as he knows. I have talked to him about it. When the suggestion was 
originally made, I cosponsored his legislation now in the form of this 
amendment. I hesitated to do it because I just really thought that the 
answer to the problem with the deficit and the growing debt is for 
Congress to face up to the problem and make tough decisions. I am one 
who has never been a big fan, quite frankly, of the Base Closure 
Commission because I did feel as if, once again, we were sort of 
abdicating our role to a commission, with recommendations, admittedly, 
from the Pentagon, and with the President's involvement because he had 
to approve it and because we had to approve the final product.
  I was concerned it was going to lead to some decisions that would be 
very questionable and court actions and a lot of other things. But I 
have to admit that it accomplished what the original sponsor, 
Congressman Armey of Texas, intended, and most Senators have supported 
its continuation. I guess we are going to have another round of base 
closure next year.
  I guess that was part of my concern. And I was concerned about how 
you would have this Commission made up and ensure it was fair and how 
they would do the job. But my first question is obvious. The way to 
deal with this problem is for us to do it. But I take it that the 
Senator is absolutely convinced we are not going to face the problems 
of making the tough choices and that the Senator feels this is the only 
way to go now. Is that correct?
  Mr. MACK. The Senator is absolutely correct. I have come to that 
conclusion--and the question the Senator asks is a very fair one. The 
question which is asked over and over again is--were you not elected to 
make those tough choices? And my answer is, ``yes,'' but we have 
failed. It would be wrong for us to go back to our constituencies and 
say, ``yes,'' we failed for the last 12 to 30 years because we cannot 
make tough spending cut decisions under the procedures currently in 
place. It seems to me we ought to come to the conclusion that we need 
to adjust the procedures to try to make them work.
  We went 15 years without closing a military base in this country and 
people said it never could be done because of the politics and the way 
the place worked. So we came up with a procedure. Yes, it is tough and, 
yes, it requires some tough action. But if we are really serious about 
getting control of Federal spending, it seems to me that the only way 
we are going to do that is to establish a commission like the Base 
Closure Commission.
  Mr. LOTT. I say this somewhat facetiously but also somewhat 
seriously. We have a Base Closure Commission to deal with the fact that 
some bases needed to be closed and we could not deal with the politics 
of it. We had a commission not exactly like this, but we had one that 
helped us try to address the problem of Social Security back in the 
1980's. Of course, we had the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings-Mack legislation to 
try to deal with getting control of the deficit. Are we just going to 
create one commission after another and basically turn our 
responsibility over to a series of commissions and only rubber stamp 
what they do?
  Mr. MACK. Again, I thank the Senator, for raising a valid charge, but 
I would go back again to my prior response. We were successful with the 
Base Closure Commission. We were successful with the Social Security 
Commission. I think we can be successful with a Spending Reduction 
Commission.
  I would say to the Senator to say, this is going to establish another 
commission and because I do not want to see another commission 
established we are going to be in opposition to it, is ignoring 
reality. If we continue the status quo, we are going to see spending 
increased year after year after year, and it will drive up the deficit 
as I have shown earlier. I have no confidence in the ability of the 
Congress to control Federal spending unless we put into place a 
commission to help it. I know of no other way.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me ask----
  Mr. MACK. Could I ask the Senator to be brief on this because I have 
to finish.
  Mr. LOTT. I was enjoying this considerably, but I will try to ask 
only a couple more questions.
  About the Commission itself, how long does the Senator envision this 
Commission being in place?
  Mr. MACK. Initially, I thought the Commission would be in place long 
enough to get us to a balanced budget. That would be around the year 
2000, according to the Congressional Budget Office, if we make the kind 
of reductions that are called for, and that is roughly $34 billion a 
year from the Congressional Budget Office baseline. But I think it 
would be important to keep it in place whenever there was a time when 
there was a projected deficit so that we would have a means on which to 
fall back.
  That is point one.
  Point two. I would like to make this comment. We are not taking away 
Congress' authority. Congress can go ahead and carry out their 
responsibility for making $34 billion a year in spending cuts. If they 
do that, there is nothing for the Commission to do. But if the Congress 
fails to meet that target, then the Commission goes into effect.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me emphasize that I understand this is 
not a deficit reduction commission. This is a spending reduction 
commission.
  Mr. MACK. That is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. I think that is a very important distinction because far 
too often around here anytime we pass an effort supposedly to deal with 
the deficit is just to be able to find another tax or raise taxes.
  I still maintain--and I know the Senator from Florida does--that the 
problem is not insufficient revenue coming into the Federal Government. 
It is too much spending and an inability to prioritize that will not 
allow us to move toward a balanced budget. That is a significant point.
  I appreciate the effort of the distinguished Senator in this regard. 
I think he is provoking a lot of talk by a lot of Senators. I have 
joined in cosponsoring this legislation. I certainly am supportive of 
his amendment today. I thank him for yielding for these questions.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 39 minutes and 38 seconds.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you Mr. President. I really appreciate what our 
colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, is doing, and I certain liked the 
colloquy between the two Senators because it really does show what our 
problem is.
  Federal deficits and accumulated Federal debt long ago passed the 
point of threatening our children and grandchildren. Congressional 
rhetoric on this issue long ago numbed the ears of even the most 
interested taxpayer. We need a completely different approach. This 
amendment, Mr. President, is such an approach.
  Ordinary common sense restraint has not prevented Congress from 
running up the national debt to more than $4 trillion. And when 
Congress has tried to enforce fiscal discipline through stop gap 
devices or the long range Gramm-Rudman-Hollings plan, the discipline 
breaks down as soon as the spending cuts become politically 
inconvenient.
  Last year, President Clinton mustered bare majorities of both Houses 
of Congress to win approval of the largest tax increase in the history 
of our country. Spending cuts were promised. But the spending cuts have 
not come.
  Fortunately, we do not have to look far. Several years ago, 
Congressman Dick Armey led the fight in Congress to enact a most 
innovative solution to a nearly intractable problem--military base 
closings. And it worked.
  Last year the independent Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
created by Congress went step-by-painstaking-step through an open, 
public process of deciding how best to down-size our military 
facilities. That this downsizing was necessary, no one disputed. But 
the political will to make the tough, necessary choices just was not 
there.
  So Congress agreed to establish a group of outside experts: to look 
at the whole structure of U.S. bases, to evaluate future needs, and to 
make a package of independent recommendations.
  The result was painful for people and communities. Nearly every State 
lost jobs and defense installations in the Commission's first round of 
actions. But without the Base Closing Commission we could never agree 
on the on the necessary action. It worked.
  Now Senator Mack has been very creative in applying the same 
principle. The Spending Reduction Commission would order a formation of 
a parallel commission and charge it with finding $34 billion in real 
spending cuts every year until a balanced budget is reached. The Mack 
amendment specifically protects Social Security from these cuts.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that $34 billion in 
cuts per year, beginning in 1995, would balance the budget--by the year 
2000. Just a little more than 5 percent reduction per year isn't too 
much to ask of a Federal Government that has grown fat and bloated.
  There is no magic about this. Many justifiable cuts have already been 
identified--under Gramm-Rudman, the Grace Commission report, the Vice 
President's reinventing Government plan, the Penny-Kasich budget 
proposal and the Dole-Hutchison $50 billion spending reduction bill.
  There are a multitude of ideas. I think an independent commission 
could find enough cuts to make that job work.
  By using the base closure model, a national Spending Reduction 
Commission can present Congress with a sensible list of substantive 
cuts, which would be set before Congress to be approved or 
disapproved--no amendments, no smoke and mirrors. The Commission is a 
vehicle to stop partisan gridlock by making cuts that are fair, that 
reflect long range national priorities and needs.
  My colleague from Florida has proposed a constructive solution to cut 
the Gordian knot of deficit reduction. This is one of those rare, fresh 
ideas that could really work. It is an idea that could really work. In 
fact Mr. President, not calling for a spending reduction commission is 
like the captain of the Titanic not calling for help! Help is here--
lets grab it.
  I commend my colleague from Florida. I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
this amendment. It is an idea whose time has come.
  Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Spending 
Commission amendment proposed by my friend and colleague, Senator Mack 
of Florida.
  Mr. President, we are in the process of debating a budget resolution 
which will leave the budget deficit on an ever upward course, if not in 
the immediate future, then certainly in the long run. Even the 
``official'' annual deficit 5 years from now projects to be higher than 
it is today.
  There is no great mystery about why this is the case. We know where 
the budget is growing, and where it isn't. We do not lack for any 
information about why the budget deficit has not been brought under 
control.
  What we lack, it has been said on both sides, is sufficient political 
will. I could not possibly count the number of times that Senators on 
this floor have argued against such measures as the line-item veto and 
the balanced budget amendment by saying that ``we don't need gimmicks. 
We need political courage.''
  If political courage is what this body lacks, then it is entirely 
appropriate to use the necessary means to help that political courage 
to develop.
  Senator Mack has chosen to build upon past successful efforts rather 
than to simply decry current political failures. We have recently had a 
few instances in which politically hazardous tasks were faced and 
handled about as well as they could be. The most obvious of these was 
the task of closing defense bases. That was truly a thankless job; a 
pure political ``loser.'' No one, in any district, was going to warm to 
the idea of the local base being closed.
  Leaving this process up to ``politics of usual'' would have combined 
the necessary sacrifices and difficulties, with unneeded charges of 
politicization. That is why we developed a base closure commission; we 
recognized that bases had to be closed, that someone's ``ox had to be 
gored,'' and that the fairest way to do it was to convene a commission 
to do it on a nonpartisan basis, and then to leave us with the 
opportunity to accept or reject the recommendations as a whole.
  The parallels between base closures and discretionary spending cuts 
are obvious. We know that both must occur. We also know that there will 
be public cynicism about the choices we make--that we are deterred from 
getting the job done by the prospect of having the process being 
labeled ``political'' or ``cruel'' or ``unfair.'' And we know that 
every such decision made will adversely affect someone's constituents.
  Senator Mack's amendment would enable us to achieve both the reality 
and appearance of nonpartisan fairness in the course of identifying 
appropriate discretionary spending cuts. It sets a clear target for 
what spending restraint is to be achieved, and creates a mechanism to 
get us there. And it attacks the fundamental problem in Congress with 
respect to producing spending restraint--that being the difficulty of 
mustering the requisite political will to do the job.
  I hope that the Senate will support Senator Mack's amendment, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. Sasser].
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I do not think this amendment is really 
something we can expect very much from.
  We have heard proposal after proposal in this body over the years 
that Congress give up its responsibility, give up our duty, give up 
ways to giving up finding ways to reduce the deficit. But that is what 
we are elected to do here by the people of this country; to deal with 
the budget; to deal with budgetary matters.
  As the distinguished President pro tempore has pointed out time after 
time on the floor of this body, the power of the purse is fundamental 
to any legislative body. It was the power of the purse that allowed the 
British Parliaments to wrest authority and jurisdiction from the 
British Kings. That was really the cradle of the democracy that we now 
enjoy in this country. It emerged from the British Parliaments who 
gained their power and their jurisdiction and their authority to 
represent the people of the United Kingdom, the British Isles, as a 
result of having the power of the purse to deal with an arbitrary 
monarch.
  Are we going to casually just throw that away and say, ``Well, we 
cannot do the job? Let us get a commission to recommend what we ought 
to do. Why don't we just give the Commission our votes and let the 
Commission have the final vote on what we ought to do?''
  I do not think any Senator or anyone would seriously recommend that 
be done.
  Let us look at the history of these commissions. I well remember the 
National Economic Commission, the 1988 National Economic Commission. 
That was formed by President Reagan as I recall or President Bush. In 
any case, there was a National Economic Commission. It may very well 
have been a creature of the Congress. I think it was. We had a National 
Economic Commission to study our budget, to review the fiscal mess that 
we had gotten ourselves into in the 1980's, and to make recommendations 
to the Congress. The cochairmen of that Commission were former 
Secretary of Transportation, Drew Lewis, and former Ambassador, Robert 
Strauss. That Commission labored mightily for many, many weeks. In the 
final analysis, it became heavily politicized and represented the same 
paralysis that at that time was represented here in this body. We 
simply could not move in the direction of reducing deficits.
  We are moving in the direction of lowering deficits now. We have not 
solved the problem totally. I will be the first to admit that. But 
deficits were projected in March 1993 by OMB to total $350 billion for 
fiscal year 1994, and because of the action taken on this floor by the 
elected representatives of the American people, who by a majority rose 
to their responsibility and passed the deficit reduction act of 1993.
  That deficit that was going to be $305 billion was reduced to 
somewhere in the neighborhood of $171 billion. As a result of the 
action taken last year, we are now looking at declining deficits for 3 
years. That is the first time that has happened, as I said earlier, 
since Harry Truman was President of the United States. We see that 
discretionary spending for fiscal year 1995 is going to be actually 
lower than it was in fiscal year 1994, in nominal terms. That is, in 
dollars that are not inflation adjusted. So when you take the 
discretionary spending in 1995 below down where it was in 1994, you are 
also taking it down even further, because that discretionary spending 
has to absorb a small amount of inflation. This is the first time 
discretionary spending has come down in this country since 1969.
  I say to my friends that I think we are now, at long last, starting 
to do our jobs. But I add that we have a long way to go. But we have 
taken the first step here. I see no reason to move forward with a 
national commission to make recommendations, because I think those 
recommendations, frankly, would be brushed aside just as the 
recommendations of the National Economic Commission were brushed aside 
in 1988. I also think that we have to give up this idea that we can 
hand off our responsibility to others and that we can narrow and 
diminish our jurisdiction simply because we do not want to accept our 
responsibility and face the political consequences of our actions.
  So, Mr. President, I have the highest regard for my friend from 
Florida, and I think he knows that. I think his heart is in the right 
place here. But I must say that I am not an enthusiastic supporter of 
this proposal, and when the time comes, I expect I will be voting 
against my friend from Florida.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida, [Mr. Mack], is 
recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Senator Gramm from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas, [Mr. Gramm], is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank our dear colleague from Florida.
  Mr. President, one of the most successful initiatives we have 
undertaken in the last decade, in terms of getting Congress to do 
something that is important and difficult, is the Base Closing 
Commission. As all of my colleagues will recall from their own 
individual experiences and that of watching others, closing a military 
base is a very, very difficult thing. In the old days, what happened 
was, even though it was obvious to a blind man that, with the defense 
build down we had after the Vietnam war, we needed to close military 
bases, we did one of two things: First, we kept bases open because we 
had powerful Senators who wanted the base kept open; or, second, we 
went through a charade where a decision would be made to close the 
base, and the Senator would go out to the base, throw his body in front 
of the bulldozer, instruct the trusty staff to, as the bulldozer was 
bearing down on him, to pull him out--all of that captured on video 
tape--and was then able to say to the people in his State--or in the 
case of Congressmen, in their districts--that he had done everything he 
could to protect the base.
  We established a Base Closing Commission which produced an objective 
evaluation, and we voted not on an individual base, but on the 
recommendations of the commission. Through that process, we have closed 
a lot of bases. Some of them I did not want to close. Yet, I felt a 
responsibility to the process, and I voted for the commission's report.
  Senator Mack proposes to bring that same process to spending 
reduction. It is a great idea. I find only one thing wrong with it: The 
Senator from Florida had the idea and not me. It makes eminently good 
sense to have an objective evaluation of spending, get input from 
everybody in America who wants to have a say, have a recommendation to 
reduce spending, and force Congress to vote yes or no on the 
recommendation. I can assure you there would be many individual 
programs or projects recommended to be cut that I would oppose, but I 
can guarantee that I would vote for the overall recommendation, never 
having seen it, because it is a process that I believe is the right way 
to do it.
  So I am strongly for this amendment. I cannot see a reason in the 
world that anybody should oppose this amendment--other than one reason: 
That they do not want to control the growth of Government spending. The 
only reason to oppose this spending reduction commission is because 
people want to continue business as usual in the American Government. I 
think the public wants change. This amendment would give us change.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida, [Mr. Mack], is 
recognized for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, in closing, I think this is an amendment 
that needs to be supported by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 
As the Senator from Texas indicated a moment ago, you can oppose this 
amendment if you do not believe that, fundamentally, the problem is 
spending. I happen to believe our deficit is driven by our failure to 
control spending all of these years.
  The second point, that is one of the strengths in this proposal is 
that we are not giving up our responsibility. In fact, the Budget 
Committee would still do its work and should they meet the targets 
outlined in the resolution, there would be no reason for the Spending 
Reduction Commission to take any action. Moreover, if the Commission 
has to act, Congress still has to deal with the Commission's 
recommendations with an up-or-down vote. The important distinction to 
note is that such a vote would be an up-or-down vote, with no 
amendments. Again, neither I nor any other Member of the Senate would 
be able to come to the floor to offer an amendment to protect something 
of interest to our States.
  There may be people who would claim that is a terrible thing to do. 
But I happen to believe that the accumulation of the debt and the 
increase in spending year after year has to stop. So the conclusion I 
have come to is that the most significant way to go about cutting 
spending is to put into place a Spending Reduction Commission. A 
commission patterned after the Base Closure Commission, which we all 
know has made some very tough decisions and has moved us forward in the 
right direction.
  So, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time and urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SASSER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Sasser], 
is recognized.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I have just a couple of comments. Again, 
with regard to the whole question here of forming a commission to 
recommend savings to Congress, one of the problems we have in 
Government now is that we have too many commissions. The cost of these 
commissions averages, I am told, about $2 million a year. So what the 
Congress is being asked to do here, in essence, is to fund a $2 million 
commission to tell the Congress what to do.
  I thought that is what we were elected to do, and I thought that is 
what the American people were paying us to do. At the end, I think this 
commission has a 1-year life, after which it must be reenergized and 
reauthorized by the Congress.
  I would predict this Commission would be like all of the rest of the 
commissions; once you have it in place, it would endure almost into 
perpetuity. The bureaucracy of this Commission, which would be paid by 
taxpayers' dollars, would be up here lobbying the Congress, saying, 
``Keep us in place another year or 2 or 3, and we are going to get this 
problem solved.''
  Before you know it some people would have their friends over there on 
the staff of this Commission and the administration going out of power, 
or an officeholder who happens to lose an election would suddenly end 
up over there on this Commission.
  So it becomes another sinecure for various and sundry individuals, 
all at the expense of the taxpayer.
  What is it all about? It is simply to recommend to this Congress that 
it do what it is charged to do anyway. We are simply creating here 
another layer of bureaucracy that would cost us, I would guess, at 
least $2 million a year, which is the average, I am told by a very 
reliable source, of the commissions across the spread of the 
Government.
  If we want to start saving money, the first thing we can do is not 
form another Commission.
  So I would urge my colleagues to reject this concept, even though I 
know the Senator from Florida is acting from the purest of motives and 
does have a profound interest here in reducing the deficit, as we all 
do. But we are working on that and we are making some progress.
  I think we can look with some pride on the progress that we have made 
over the last year. Certainly we have a ways to go, but the deficit 
package that was passed last year that we said would reduce the deficit 
by $500 billion, many people laughed at that and said that is not going 
to happen; it cannot happen. The facts are that that deficit package 
that we passed last year by one vote, Mr. President--by one vote--and I 
might say that many of our friends who are now expressing grave concern 
about the deficit--and they are genuine in that concern--those friends 
voted against that deficit reduction effort. But that deficit reduction 
effort that was calculated last year to reduce the deficit by $500 
billion a year has now been recalculated, and is calculated now to 
reduce the deficit over 5 years in excess of $600 billion a year.
  So I say to my friends; we are making progress here, we have a ways 
to go, and I do not think we need to spend money on forming another 
Commission here. Let us just carry on and do our duty, make the 
appropriate cuts, live up to our responsibility of dealing with the 
budgetary matters, and stay the course. I think we are making progress.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to first thank my friend from 
Florida.
  We are trying very hard on our side to reduce the time on amendments. 
Even though statutorily each amendment is allowed 1 hour on each side, 
we are trying to get our proponents to reduce them.
  The Senator did fairly well. We came in at about 31 minutes, and I 
think he agreed to 30. I thank the Senator very much for that.
  I gather the Senator from Tennessee is going to yield back his time 
in opposition?
  Mr. SASSER. I am.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has he already?
  Mr. SASSER. I am prepared to do so.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Then we will stack this vote also, I might ask my 
friend.
  Mr. SASSER. Has all time been yielded back?
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has been yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is there a consent that this would be set aside?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Not as yet.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on 
the Mack amendment having been yielded back, that the pending Mack 
amendment be temporarily laid aside to be disposed of following the 
Domenici amendment No. 1567, and that no further amendments be in order 
to the Mack amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada reserves the right 
to object.
  Mr. REID. I withdraw the reservation.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears no objection. It is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional minute.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say that on our side we are 
prepared to proceed with one amendment after the other in a very timely 
manner.
  I understand that Senator Hutchison will go next, and while she has 
agreed to try not to use more than 20 minutes, that will be left up to 
the junior Senator from Texas.
  But after that, I might state, we are ready with an amendment from 
the senior Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm. He has agreed to 20 
minutes in behalf of his amendment. We will proceed in that manner with 
something between 15 and 20 minutes on our side for each amendment. We 
are ready after Senator Gramm with another, if that suits the chairman. 
If not, we will rotate as he desires.
  Mr. SASSER. Mr. President, let us proceed with the amendment of the 
Senator from Texas, and then we will try to work out a rotation here.
  It may very well be that some of our amendments may be falling by the 
wayside here. But let us proceed with the amendment of the Senator from 
Texas.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to fellow Republican Senators, we still have a 
list of somewhere around 10, maybe 12 amendments.
  I hope those who have amendments that we have on our list will agree 
to take no more than 20 minutes on each amendment, and that there will 
be no other amendments other than the ones we have, although we are not 
restricting them to that. We will get everybody up and they will all 
have a little bit of time, if we could do it that way.
  So I urge consideration of fellow Senators who have amendments in 
trying to restrain the amount of time Senators would require.
  I thank the Chair. And I yield to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], 
is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank you.


                           Amendment No. 1572

(Purpose: To reduce Function 800 to reflect a 7.5 percent reduction in 
                  legislative branch appropriations.)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, 
     Senators Kempthorne, Brown, McCain, Bennett, Roth, Coverdell, 
     and Faircloth, proposes an amendment numbered 1572.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   The amendment is as follows:

       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 1 by $200,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 2 by $400,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 3 by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 4 by $600,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 5 by $700,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 11 by $200,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 12 by $400,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 13 by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 14 by $600,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 15 by $700,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 22 by $200,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 23 by $400,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 24 by $500,000,000.
       On page 5, decrease the amount on line 25 by $600,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 1 by $700,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 7 by $200,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 8 by $400,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 9 by $500,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 10 by $600,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 11 by $700,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 17 by $200,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 18 by $400,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 19 by $500,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 20 by $600,000,000.
       On page 6, decrease the amount on line 21 by $700,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 1 by $200,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 2 by $400,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 3 by $500,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 4 by $600,000,000.
       On page 7, decrease the amount on line 5 by $700,000,000.
       On page 36, decrease the amount on line 20 by $200,000,000.
       On page 36, decrease the amount on line 21 by $200,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 2 by $400,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 3 by $400,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 9 by $500,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 10 by $500,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 16 by $600,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 17 by $600,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 23 by $700,000,000.
       On page 37, decrease the amount on line 24 by $700,000,000.
       On page 70, decrease the amount on line 21 by $400,000,000.
       On page 70, decrease the amount on line 22 by $400,000,000.
       On page 70, decrease the amount on line 24 by $500,000,000.
       On page 70, decrease the amount on line 25 by $500,000,000.
       On page 71, decrease the amount on line 2 by $600,000,000.
       On page 71, decrease the amount on line 3 by $600,000,000.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we all say that Government must live 
within its means. If we cannot reach that goal today with the whole 
Federal budget, we can at least make a meaningful down payment, one the 
American people will understand and I believe they will approve. We can 
tighten our belts here in Congress.
  My amendment will cut the overall legislative branch appropriations 
by just 7.5 percent. It reduces fiscal year 1995 spending by $200 
million in budget authority and in outlays from the baseline. Over the 
next 5 years, that will cut a total of $2.4 billion from legislative 
branch spending.
  Mr. President, this is a reasonable amendment. It shows that we will 
take the first step to do what we say all Government should do, and 
that is, make a modest cut in our own budgets as we are asking many 
Federal agencies to do.
  I would like to take this chance to ask some of my colleagues if they 
would like to speak on this amendment.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] 
is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment by 
the distinguished Senator from Texas and am proud to do so.
  Most of us who are Members of this body who have recently come from 
the election process, have been indelibly marked by the electorate's 
broad dissatisfaction with the manner in which we have been conducting 
our business in Washington. They read of the size of the Federal 
Government, they read of the size of the staff, and the apparatus that 
surrounds the legislative as well as the executive branch, and they 
raise a loud voice of objection.
  The Senator from Texas, in pointing to the size of the amendment, 
used a physical gesture that this would not be all that much. I 
understand why she does that. But probably, if you put this in the 
hands of the electorate of Texas or Georgia, they would say that is 
right; that is not near enough, but they would also commend her for 
taking the initiative.
  Congress has increased spending for its own budget at double the 
inflation rate. We talk about health care. We have the same runaway 
increase in expenditures in our own legislative branch. In 10 years, 
the Consumer Price Index has risen 44 percent, the legislative branch 
95 percent.
  The legislative branch staff has approximately 38,000 workers, which 
is larger than the combined legislative staff of Canada, Great Britain, 
Germany, and France. Canada has the second largest legislative staff 
with only 4,000 employees.

  When the American people say as loudly as they did to the Congress of 
the United States in 1992, that they wanted things to be done 
differently in Washington, they meant it. And the amendment that the 
Senator from Texas has sent to the desk is exactly what they are 
talking about. They want us to lead the way to sound and practical 
financial practices in the Government of the United States of America.
  Again, I say to the Senator from Texas, I appreciate the time she has 
allowed for me to speak to her amendment, and I wish her much success 
in her presentation of this important amendment.
  I yield back to the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague 
from Georgia for those very important remarks. Those facts are very 
important for the American people to realize the magnitude of what we 
are talking about here.
  I want to say that, in addition to Senator Coverdell, Senators 
Kempthorne, Brown, McCain, Bennett, Roth, and Faircloth are also 
cosponsors of this amendment.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Utah, Senator 
Bennett.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I recently appeared before the Rules 
Committee to testify on the proposed changes in the structure of the 
Senate with respect to committee assignments and other activities. I 
have not put a sharp pencil on the savings which the Senate would 
achieve if some of those changes were made, but I am confident that the 
elimination of some of the standing committees, as contemplated by the 
Rules Committee, and the elimination of some of the select committees, 
and some of the joint committees, as contemplated by the Joint 
Committee on Congressional Reform, would make it possible for us to 
achieve the kinds of savings that the amendment written by the Senator 
from Texas contemplates.
  I have learned in this world that one can talk about reforms, one can 
talk about changes and get a lot of enthusiasm for it, but one does not 
achieve those changes where there is money involved unless there are 
money caps that accompany the conversation.
  So I submit to this body that the approval of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Texas will provide the impetus that the Rules 
Committee needs to achieve the kinds of reforms that were discussed in 
the hearing where I testified.
  It is for that reason, along with the others that have been talked 
about here, that I am happy to rise in support of this amendment.
  For those who say, ``Well, Senator, that will cut your allowance; 
that will cut your staff,'' I recognize that that is a very real 
possibility and, indeed, have been living with that kind of cut ever 
since I came to the Senate. This first year in the Senate, we returned 
over 10 percent of the amount of the staff money available in my office 
in anticipation of just such an amendment. So we have gotten used to 
being at that level and we discovered that we can function just fine.
  Therefore, I am proud to support the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Texas and tell her that she will not only achieve the goals she is 
searching for in terms of a budgetary impact, but will provide some 
teeth to the Rules Committee as they attempt to achieve some reform in 
structural restructuring. Without the prod of the money on one end, the 
good intentions on the other are less likely to come to pass.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for 
being a leader in putting his money where his mouth is. He ran as an 
outsider, as a small business person. He knew that you could 
consistently bring down a budget, and he has cut 10 percent from his 
own budget.
  I said I would do the same thing when I ran for this office, and so 
far--I have not been here a year--I am running on a 20 percent lower 
budget than is my allocation. We do not send franked newsletters. We 
have cut back on office space in Texas to save rent expenses, and we 
curtail travel wherever possible.
  Senators Domenici and Boren have worked very hard this session 
pushing the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress to make 
many of the reforms necessary to cut the legislative branch by 7.5 
percent. Just cutting down on the number of committees and reducing 
subcommittees to 4 per committee, except for the Appropriations 
Committee, would downsize Congress. It would help us in making these 
cuts. I hope we can do this today to show the American people that we 
are willing to take these steps.
  Our Founding Fathers established the legislative branch to pass 
legislation and to check the powers of the executive branch. Visionary 
members of the Constitutional Convention may have foreseen 50 States 
and 535 legislators, but I do not think they foresaw a congressional 
staff of 38,000 people.
  Over the past 10 years, Congress has increased its own budget at 
double the rate of inflation. During that time, the Consumer Price 
Index rose 44 percent, while outlays for the Federal legislative branch 
rose 95 percent. In 1983, we spent $1.3 billion. Last year, we spent 
$2.3 billion.
  Mr. President, I grew up in La Marque, TX. It is near Galveston. I 
just love it. We have about 15,000 people there. Its annual budget is 
$7.4 million. La Marque is a city of honest people, hardworking people 
that go to church, raise their children, and pay their taxes. And they 
have common sense. None of them could be convinced that it takes more 
than twice the population of our city to operate our Capitol, with a 
budget that is 460 times what it takes to run their whole city.
  If we make this small cut today, we may get to spend more time at 
home with our constituents and our families next year. The reduction 
could cut the number of bills that are introduced, the number of 
statements that are inserted into the Congressional Record, the number 
of committee and subcommittee hearings that are held each day, and the 
hours of speeches when we are in session. And we certainly learned that 
this morning when we left the Capitol at 3:30 after a very long night.
  Many people in America would say ``hallelujah'' if we cut back. But, 
Mr. President, most would not notice any difference at all.
  I think the time has come to make this first gesture to show that we 
are serious about what we are asking the American people to do and the 
Federal agencies of this Government to do.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. But first I want to yield 
3 minutes to my colleague from Arizona [Senator McCain].
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair and I thank my distinguished friend and 
colleague from the State of Texas, who I think is bringing forth a very 
important and valuable amendment.
  First, I would like to discuss some facts, and then I would like to 
discuss some problems that this Congress has in perception in the minds 
of the American people.
  The amendment, as we know, will represent a $200 million reduction 
for fiscal year 1995 and $2.4 billion over 5 years. I think it is well 
to note that the Congress has increased spending for its own budget at 
double the rate of inflation in the last 10 years. In fact, in the last 
10 years, the Consumer Price Index has risen 44 percent, while outlays 
for the legislative branch have grown 95 percent. Appropriations from 
the legislative branch have increased from $1.3 billion in 1982 to $2.3 
billion in 1993.
  Mr. President, that is an astounding number. It is so astounding, I 
will repeat it. The appropriations for the legislative branch have 
increased from $1.3 billion in 1982 to $2.3 billion in 1993. This 
legislative branch employs more people--38,000 people--than any other 
legislative entity in the world. Canada employs the second largest 
number, which is 4,000 employees.

  We are in the process of passing legislation, the buyout bill, which 
will downsize the Federal Government by almost 300,000 employees. 
Clearly, there is no reason Congress should not downsize itself at the 
same time.
  Passing this amendment would not affect the business we must 
complete. For example, we could achieve much of this proposed cut by 
eliminating slush funds and forcing the Congress to turn back any 
unused appropriation, reduce the use of the frank, implement the plans 
proposed by the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress, 
which would reduce the number of Senate committees and subcommittees.
  Finally, if anybody in this body thinks the approval rating of the 
American people of this legislative branch of government is good, they 
have not seen the figures that I have seen. Around 28 percent of the 
American people approve of Congress.
  One of the reasons they disapprove is they think we spend too much 
money and waste their money.
  As usual, the American people are correct. I think the amendment of 
the Senator from Texas is a reasonable one and one we could adopt and 
send a signal to the American people we are willing to make the same 
sacrifices we are asking them to make on a daily basis.
  I thank the Senator from Texas again and yield back to her the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? Time is being charged 
against both sides.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 45 minutes and 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to reserve 10 minutes for 
closing on my amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Very well.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is that in the form of a unanimous consent 
request?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair did not understand the Senator.
  Mr. REID. I did not either. Is she yielding the remaining 35 minutes?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is reserving 10 
minutes of her remaining time to close her debate.
  The rest of the time is running on both sides equally.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BENNETT. If a quorum call were called at this moment, against 
whom would it be charged?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It would be charged against the side which 
controls the time.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. In other words, only those who control 
time or their designees may put in a quorum.
  The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid].
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is speaking as the designee?
  Mr. REID. Yes, of the manager of the bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Of Mr. Sasser; and is speaking in 
opposition. He yields himself such time as he may require.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the proponent of this amendment has stated 
it is reasonable. She wants to take the first step for the legislative 
branch to save money.
  In all due respect to my friend from Texas, the proponent of this 
amendment, I say the amendment is not reasonable and certainly it is 
not the first step. I believe those people who are pushing this 
amendment either do not understand what has gone on during the past 6 
years in the legislative branch appropriations bill, or they choose not 
to understand what has gone on. Because far from this amendment being 
the first step to saving this branch of government money, it is way, 
way removed. There have been many steps taken.
  For example, there has been some talk that perhaps we should do 
something about franking. Franking, as I will indicate in a few 
minutes, has been cut dramatically.
  There has been a statement made on the floor this would force the 
Appropriations Committee to do something. The Appropriations Committee 
has not been forced to do anything in the past. We have done it because 
it is the right thing to do. We have cut the legislative branch 
Appropriations Committee dramatically. We have fewer people working in 
the legislative branch of Government today than we had 14 years ago. 
That does not sound to me like runaway inflation. It does not sound to 
me like we have not taken care of the legislative branch.
  There has been talk that this branch of government has 38,000 
employees. The fact of the matter is, if you add in the Library of 
Congress, the General Accounting Office, the Government Printing 
Office, Office of Technology Assessment, you do get up, counting 
interns, and part-time people, to that number.
  Of course the executive branch of the Government has well over a 
million people. In fact, my statement of a million people is about 250 
percent short, there are over 2\1/2\ million people who work in the 
executive branch of government.
  I was a member, as were a number of other people--six Democrats and 
six Republicans from this body--of the Committee to Reorganize 
Congress. We issued our report at the end of last year to reorganize 
Congress. I think we did some responsible things. Our committees, 
chaired by Senators Domenici and Boren, I think were responsible. That 
matter is before the Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee is going 
to take some action. But you cannot do it out of a vacuum. There have 
to be some responsible measures taken.
  I chaired the task force to find out about Senate coverage; that is, 
the bills we pass and impose on the rest of the American public, how 
should those acts of legislation we passed apply to us? We made a 
report, Senator Stevens and I. We gave our report to the majority 
leader and the minority leader. Of course it is no secret. One of the 
things that it calls for is we are going to have to hire some people in 
the legislative branch of government to make sure we can comply with 
those things. If in fact there is some organization or individual out 
of compliance, we need some mechanism to allow compliance.
  We have the Americans for Disabilities Act apply to this body. We 
have the last civil rights legislation we passed apply to this body. We 
are now going to come before the Senate and ask for money to pay for 
the lawyers it has taken us to comply with that act.
  Mr. President, this amendment is not reasonable, nor is it the first 
step. As I indicated earlier, I am sure the press release on this 
amendment has already been written.
  (Mr. CAMPBELL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, they no doubt proclaim that the sponsors 
have offered a proposal to slash the fat from a bloated legislative 
branch bill. But before anyone takes these claims at face value, they 
should be aware of an uncomfortably inconsistent fact. The real news is 
we have already put the knives to whatever bloat existed in the 
institutions and agencies making up the legislative branch of 
Government. In fact, I would argue that we have already cut into the 
bone and the muscle, in many cases. Let me give you a few examples, Mr. 
President.
  The legislative branch today is funded at a level that is below total 
funding for fiscal year 1992 and nominal dollars, that is dollars not 
adjusted for inflation or other uncontrollable cost increases. We are 
one of the few appropriations bills that appropriated last year less in 
actual dollars than we appropriated the year before.
  Mr. President, we not only did it last year, we did it the year 
before when that kind of action was unheard of around here.
  This amendment is not the first step. As a result of some of the work 
that has been done by this legislative branch--and I might indicate, 
Mr. President, that I have had some cost-cutting people as ranking 
members of this subcommittee--Senators Nickles, Senator Gorton, and now 
I have Senator Mack. These people are not spendthrifts. Anything I have 
gotten through the committee I have had to clear with these Senators, 
which I think indicates, just by mentioning their names, are some of 
the most cost-conscious people in the entire Congress.
  As a result of the action we have taken, the legislative branch is 
now 12 percent in budget authority and 11 percent in outlays below what 
it was 2 years ago. I think that is pretty good work. I think this is 
not the first step. The first step was taken many years ago when I had 
to deal with Don Nickles as a ranking member of this committee. We 
worked very hard to cut franking and other things.
  The result in personnel intensive agencies, like those of the 
legislative branch, is predictable. Staffing levels are falling and 
they are falling rapidly. The Library of Congress, for example, now has 
568 fewer full-time equivalent positions than it had in 1990. Let me 
repeat that. Almost 600 people are working someplace else or unemployed 
who were working at the Library of Congress.
  The General Accounting Office, which this amendment would cut 10 
percent below the current level, has almost 600 fewer full-time 
equivalent positions than it had in 1990. In both cases, this amounts 
to about a 10-percent reduction to the on-board staff. That seems like 
we have done something.
  I, frankly, Mr. President, resent people coming on this floor and 
saying we have not cut the legislative branch. I repeat, they either do 
not understand the facts or have chosen to ignore them. Talk to the 
people at the Library of Congress if you think they have not been cut. 
There has been a little gesture made in this, title 180 or 18, whatever 
it is, will not apply, which is an effort to say these cuts will not 
apply to the Library of Congress.
  Let everyone understand that this amendment will cut the heart out of 
the Library of Congress because what choice would we in the 
Appropriations Committee have? It is one of the largest budgets. We 
would have to do something with the Library of Congress which already--
already--let everyone understand this, we are already, if we do not cut 
another penny from the Library of Congress, if we even-fund them this 
year, we are talking about closing the Library of Congress on weekends, 
closing them every evening. I resent it being said that this is the 
first step. Talk to Dr. Billington at the Library of Congress if you 
think this is the first step. He has had to lay off people, experienced 
people, at the Library of Congress.
  The across-the-board legislative branch staffing is 1,400 people in 
full-time equivalent positions below the level of 1990, not counting 
the staff reductions in the House. It sounds pretty good to me, and for 
someone to say that there have been no steps taken? Those statements 
are made for the press releases. They are not made based upon facts, 
and everyone within the sound of my voice has to understand that.
  These people I am talking about, these 1,400 people, are real human 
beings who no longer have a job in the legislative branch.
  For the record, it should be noted that since fiscal year 1990, we 
have reduced and denied requests for staffing in continuing and new 
positions by a total of $1.1 billion and almost 2,000 positions. This 
does not include the House. Given the constraints in the budget 
resolution as it now stands, we fully expect that it will be necessary 
to continue this level of fiscal constraint.
  There will not be enough funding in the fiscal 1995 legislative 
branch appropriations bill to cover uncontrollable costs and increases, 
let alone any growing workload or new program requirements. The result 
will inevitably further reductions in resources and the elimination of 
additional staff.
  Mr. President, the State of Colorado is still a rapidly growing 
State. It is a bigger State than the State of Nevada. I do not know how 
many people live in Colorado, but there are a lot more people who live 
in Colorado than Nevada.
  I, from the small State of Nevada, get as many as 4,000 pieces of 
mail a week--a week, not a month. Do those people who write me those 
letters want answers to the letters, or do they want me to just put 
them in the trash can? I think they want me to answer those letters, 
and I do answer those letters the best I can with my hardworking staff.
  We also have developed the people's branch of Government. That is 
what we are. We are the people's branch of Government, as indicated by 
Thomas Jefferson and many others. My office, and I think most of the 
offices here, work to get through the bureaucracy. We are the bulwark 
against the bureaucrats that sometimes have no heart.
  My Nevada staff works on casework. They do not do much on 
legislation, just like the President presiding over this body, just 
like the other Members of this legislative body. We work to help our 
constituents through the red tape.
  In coming over here today, I asked my staff to pick up a couple 
letters because my staff in Las Vegas, Carson City, and Reno are very 
proud of the work they do, and rightfully so, to help us get through 
the bureaucratic morass to help people.
  Here is a letter that just came in. I am familiar with it because I 
just read it yesterday:

       Dear Senator Reid: Sometime ago, I wrote your office in 
     regards to my husband, Earl Gladstrap, who was in the Navy 
     for 10 years serving in World War II. He has dementia and I'm 
     his sole caretaker. This has been happening over a period of 
     5 years, and I was in desperate need of some help. I am most 
     happy to report to you that thanks to your personal efforts 
     and the efforts of your staff--

  More my staff than my personal efforts--

     the VA has approved adult day care for him 3 days a week for 
     an initial period of 6 months. This has been a tremendous 
     help to me. I believe it is also beneficial to my husband. 
     Thanks for showing your concern for older and now often 
     powerless veterans who once gave their skills and risked 
     their very lives to help preserve our freedom. Thank you also 
     for the gift of hope, rare, indeed, in these circumstances.

  This is a person who would not have had help but for my congressional 
staff. And we can multiply that thousands and thousands of times in the 
State of Nevada, the State of Colorado, the State of West Virginia. I 
do not know about everyplace, but I think so. That is what the staff is 
all about. That is why we need staff, diminished as it is: to respond 
to our constituents. We do not have these staffs for our personal 
aggrandizement. They are staff to help my constituents, your 
constituents.
  Another letter: ``Just today''--and this letter is written to one of 
my staff, one of my loyal staff who works on Social Security cases 
mostly, Janice Miller. She has been with me a number of years; a very, 
very loyal employee, and the Federal Government gets their money's 
worth from Janice.

       Dear Ms. Miller: Just today we received final action from 
     Medicare Phoenix on claims that have been pending since last 
     July.

  This letter was written in December.

       There is absolutely no doubt in our mind that had it not 
     been for the effort expended on our behalf by Senator Reid's 
     office--

  By Janice

     these claims would still be in the bureaucratic mill. For 
     your help, we're grateful and forward our heartfelt thanks.

  It is not a letter written to me. This is a letter written to one of 
my staff. This letter could be used as representative of every Senator 
in here, I hope, because that is why we have staff.
  Mr. President, that is a situation under the resolution as reported. 
The legislative branch is going to continue to shrink, and we are 
putting at risk some of our essential functions as a coequal branch of 
government. We have three separate branches of government, but that 
does not say it all. We have three separate but equal branches of 
government according to the Founding Fathers, and they set this up so 
there would be a constant battle between the three branches to maintain 
the equal power.
  We fight with the executive branch every day. We fight with the 
judiciary every day, as does the executive. We do that because we know 
we are a separate branch of government, but we want to be an equal 
branch of government. We cannot do that if we cannot answer our 
constituents' mail, if we cannot respond to casework within our State.
  If you add this amendment to what the resolution already provides, 
the impact will be disastrous on the institutional capacity of the 
Congress and its supporting agencies.
  I want to say again, remember the figure thrown out by the Senator 
from Georgia, 38,000 people in the legislative branch. They are not our 
employees, Mr. President. They work, 5,000, for the General Accounting 
Office, the watchdog of Congress; the Library of Congress, 5,000 people 
there approximately, the finest library in the history of the world--
not of this country, not of Europe and the United States, the finest 
library in the history of the entire world ever--not today but ever. We 
maintain that library. That is one of our responsibilities. The idea 
came from Thomas Jefferson. The first books in the Library were his 
books. We still have some of his books in the Library.
  Over the last several years, we have instituted a number of money 
saving reforms in regard to franking.
  We replaced former joint appropriations for both Houses, both the 
House and the Senate, so we would have a separate account for each.
  There were some who told Senator Nickles and this Senator that, well, 
if you join them together, we do not know what the House is doing or 
what the Senate is doing. It was, I think, a good criticism. So we were 
able, after some consternation, to work this out with the House so we 
have separate accounts now. We know how much each body spends.
  We persuaded the House to adopt explicit mail allowances to 
individual Members comparable to the Senate allocation system. The 
House adopted our system. It was hard but they did it. We have worked 
well with the House. This limits amounts Members can mail. Formerly, 
Mr. President, there were no limits.
  This amendment is not the first step. We require public disclosure of 
mail costs of individual Members of the House and the Senate. In prior 
years, you could not determine how much anybody had spent. You can now. 
As to individual Members, you can determine--it is published every 6 
months--how much they spent on mail. That is a reform that we came by.
  In the Senate, the allocation is tied to the amount appropriated, 
which has been coming down. In fiscal year 1992, the Senate 
appropriation for official mail was $32 million. For the current year, 
it is $20 million. That is a significant drop. On a percentage basis, 
Mr. President, that is about a third--a 33-percent drop.
  Overall, the total cost of the frank for both Houses declined from a 
high of $114 million to now $35 million. Everyone, listen to that, from 
a high of $114 million to $35 million, a difference of 70 percent.
  Now, does anyone question why I am resentful of someone coming on 
this floor and saying we have done nothing, that this is the first 
step? We have cut mail costs 70 percent.
  This amendment would reduce the funding for the elements of the 
legislative branch within Function 800 by 7.5 percent or about $200 
million below the 1995 baseline and freeze it at that level through 
1999. This would include both Houses of Congress and most of the 
related agencies funded in the legislative branch appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I had hoped the Senate might be spared the spectacle--
and I call it that--of yet another assault on the first branch of 
government by one of its own Members. But I was wrong. I want everyone 
within the sound of my voice to hear, I repeat, that this amendment 
that is offered is not a first step, and it is not a small step. The 
person offering the amendment either is unaware of the facts or chooses 
to ignore them. I have gone over some of the things that we have cut. I 
am going to continue.
  The demagogic value of bashing the people's body, the Congress, I 
know is very--it is a lot of fun. I know Congress is not well thought 
of out there, Mr. President. You know that. So it is easy to get up and 
posture at the expense of the institutions of representative democracy. 
It does not, however, include the Library of Congress, they say. Wrong 
again. Members should not allow themselves to be deceived into 
believing that the Library will not be affected. I can assure you that 
if the amendment is incorporated in the final budget resolution, the 
Library will not be spared the pain when it comes time to mark up and 
pass the legislative branch appropriations bill for 1995. We would have 
no choice. A reduction in the allocation of the legislative branch 
subcommittee will inevitably take its toll on all the agencies and 
institutions in this bill.
  Let us take a look at the fine print of this amendment, the 
assumptions--and they are exactly that--on which this proposal is 
apparently based.
  First, we are told to assume that the recommendations of the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress will be adopted and will 
result in a 25-percent cut in committee staff. Well, this is an 
interesting assumption, but that is all it is, an assumption.
  The joint committee's recommendations are pending, as I already 
indicated, before the Rules Committee. It is a little premature to 
decide what the outcome of those recommendations might be and base our 
budget on crystal-ball gazing, guesswork.
  Just one example of the contingencies involved. This amendment 
involves the elimination of subcommittees, but the joint committee 
recommendations did not kill a single subcommittee. I was on the joint 
committee. There was a decision made by Senators Boren, Domenici, and 
the other members of that committee not to directly affect 
subcommittees. Instead, the hoped-for reduction in subcommittees will 
be achieved by limiting the number of subcommittees each full committee 
could have--for example, three for A's, two for B's. Will these 
limitations be adopted and enforced? If they are, would they eliminate 
subcommittees with large staffs, subcommittees with small staffs, 
average staffs? Would they eliminate any of the subcommittees? If 
subcommittees are abolished, their functions and workload would have to 
be reassigned, either to other subcommittees or to the full committee. 
Is it not likely the staff might follow the function and continue doing 
some of that work?
  The honest answer to all these questions is, who knows?
  Mr. President, one of the recommendations--and it may come to be--is 
that we would eliminate the Small Business Committee. Senator Bumpers 
is the chair of that. Does that mean we do not have problems in this 
country with small business and some other committee would not have to 
take a look at some of the problems that Senator Bumpers has been 
working on in that subcommittee? Of course, we would have to look at 
small business. Small business is affected by everything we do. It is 
affected by crime. It is affected by welfare reform, health care 
reform. There is not a thing we do that does not directly impact on 
small business. But one of the things we are talking about doing is 
eliminating the Small Business Committee. Sure there still would be 
work that would have to be done.

  We stand on the floor of this Senate and are being asked to give 
serious consideration to a proposal that is based on analysis that is 
at the very best conjectural.
  Another point about the Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress recommendations, which this amendment assumes will be adopted. 
The joint committee also recommends that we carry out a study of the 
legislative branch structure and staffing modeled on the National 
Performance Review to guide our efforts to achieve staffing reductions.
  This is not something that was pushed by the legislative branch. This 
is something that was adopted by Senator Boren, Senator Domenici, and 
the rest of committee. There were as many Democrats as Republicans. No 
one would assume we should take a meat ax to what is going to go on. We 
need, as indicated by the joint committee, to staff on the model that 
we will get from the National Performance Review. That seems 
reasonable.
  Even more to the point, and I want everyone also to make sure they 
understand this: the Office of Technology Assessment--I have conducted 
those hearings for the last many years. Every year we have Senator 
Kennedy, Senator Stevens and, most of the time, Senator Hatch. This was 
their baby. The Office of Technology Assessment was their model to 
allow America, to allow the United States, to compete scientifically 
with Japan and other countries.
  Do you know what this amendment does to the Office of Technology 
Assessment? It wipes it out. It eliminates it. The President's chief 
scientific adviser, where did he get his background? He led the Office 
of Technology Assessment.
  I will let others also speak to this. I hope my friend, Senator 
Kennedy, will come to the floor, and maybe Senator Stevens, to talk 
about the Office of Technology Assessment. I do not know if he will be 
able to be here.
  I find it puzzling that the Republican Party, not our party, would 
want to cripple the Congress' watchdog on Government waste, fraud, and 
mismanagement. That does not make sense. That is the effort here, to go 
to the General Accounting Office, the watchdog of Congress. What they 
are recommending, what this amendment would do is slash the General 
Accounting Office by 25 percent.
  Congress gets some bad marks. We acknowledge that. But I do not know 
of any bad marks of the General Accounting Office. They are the 
watchdog of the Congress of the United States. They are able, without 
demanding appointment, to serve for terms of 16 years or 12 years. The 
Comptroller General of this country is not a political job. He does 
outstanding work through the employees that he has. If we cut them 25 
percent--remember, we have already cut them about 600. So we would cut 
them another 25 percent. As I indicated, the funding would be cut by 10 
percent, which would mean a staff cut at 25 percent.
  The GAO is operating now with about 11 percent fewer full-time public 
staff than in 1992. Why were they cut? Because we did it. The 
legislative branch did it: Senators Reid, Nickles, Gorton. And this 
year I am sure Senator Mack will join us in some of the things that we 
have done.
  This amendment assumes we can eliminate 25 percent of the remaining 
GAO personnel. If we did that, we would precipitate a wholesale 
reduction in force with all the disruption it would entail. Try to 
imagine that. It is one of the few entities within the legislative 
branch that is accepted almost universally as being a unique, powerful, 
equitable entity that does tremendous good for this country--
overcharging for military parts in the military, toilets seats, 
hammers, too many spare parts, all from the General Accounting Office.
  We, in effect, I think, Mr. President, would be closing the GAO. We 
are going to close OTA. Let us close the GAO. It would be so 
disruptive. I do not know what kind of work they would do with this 
meat-ax approach.
  Mr. President, I ask if the Chair would advise the Senator from 
Nevada how much time he has remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 25 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Every Senator has a stake in the outcome of this amendment; not a 
stake to have plush carpeting, not a stake to have people drive you 
around, not for limousines, not for food. No. Legislative branch costs 
do not cover that. But, Mr. President, what it would do is dramatically 
affect how we can do business, how we can respond to the people in the 
States that we represent.
  The cuts, we assume, would not just apply to the support agency or to 
the legislative branch in general. They also are aimed directly at the 
Senate offices, including the personal offices of each Senator. This 
amendment would cut the appropriations for the Senator's Official 
Personnel and Office Expense Account, as well as other Senate offices 
by more than 5 percent. This reduction would be on top of the 2.5-
percent reduction that we took last year.
  My mail has gone up dramatically since I became a Member of the 
Senate 8 years ago. There has been a tremendous increase in the amount 
of mail from the State of Nevada. I have trouble keeping up with my 
mail. We work hard, but it is really difficult to do.
  This amendment would mean a reduction in allowances for people to do 
that kind of work, or to help work through the bureaucracy, as I have 
given illustrations earlier in my remarks. Our allowances are exceeded 
by a substantial amount in the appropriations. We simply, Mr. 
President, have to realize that this amendment would do Senate offices 
irreparable harm in our ability to respond to our constituents. And 
that is what our job is.
  Senators are authorized to incur obligations against their allowances 
notwithstanding the amount actually appropriated. We have frozen the 
appropriation for the past 3 years. As a result, we are encountering 
growing shortfalls which we have been able to cover with savings in 
other Senate accounts. In effect, some Senators have not adjusted their 
money, as the Senator from Utah said. He did not lose 10 percent of 
his. That has been used by us to cover the shortfalls in the 
appropriated amounts. But that will be no longer possible in 1995, 
separate and apart from this amendment. It has nothing to do with this 
amendment. The funding constraints of the last few years have removed 
that option. So from now on we will have to be sure that the cost of 
the Senate allowances are fully funded. They have not been in the past.
  The current appropriations for Senators' offices is $185 million. A 
5-percent cut would leave $176,479,000. Projected obligations under 
existing allowances total almost $200 million.
  So if this amendment is adopted, the difference between the amount 
appropriated and the obligations would be a shortfall of over $21 
million. To eliminate that shortfall and avoid exposing Senate officers 
to the violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, allowances would have to 
be cut by this amount. Thus, a 5-percent cut in the appropriation that 
funds the cost of Senators' office allowances would result in an almost 
11-percent cut in the actual budget of these offices.
  So, Mr. President, before the Senators cast their votes on this 
amendment, they should confer with their office staffs on the impact of 
the 11 percent reduction in their budget.
  In this regard, I want to commend the sponsor of this amendment for 
her honesty. I think, Mr. President, it is time that we recognize that 
we cannot continue voting for cuts in the legislative branch and in the 
process exempt our own offices from the consequences. My colleagues 
will recall last year we reduced the total allowances for Senators' 
offices by 2.5 percent. Even that modest reduction has caused 
significant problems for some offices which is not surprising given the 
growing workload we all face. The State of Texas has a lot more staff 
than the State of Colorado and the State of Nevada. Some offices have 
had significant problems with the cuts that we have made.
  Let me give you one fact that is indicative of the larger reality. In 
1990, Senate offices received a total of about 28 million pieces of 
mail. In 1993, the total was about 43 million. Much of that mail 
requires more than just a letter of response. Some people write to us 
that have significant legislative questions that we have to respond to. 
They are difficult to respond to.
  So the increase of 15 million pieces of mail says a lot.
  Much of that mail, as I indicated, needs more than a letter in 
response. Often our constituents write and ask for help with a problem 
they may be having with a Government agency. Other times, they may want 
information on any number of topics, all of which require research and 
capable staff work. So letters offer much more than so much 
correspondence.
  So it is up to the Senate to decide whether we are prepared to defend 
the institution, Mr. President. I am willing to do my share of cost 
cutting. I think I have done it. We have done it in this committee. We 
have had votes in the last few days that call for cutting. But let us 
not do something that will hurt our ability to do our work. Is there 
anybody here who wants to close the Library of Congress on weekends or 
at night? Do we want to cut another thousand people out of the Library?
  As we speak, we have in the Library not thousands or tens of 
thousands, but millions of items that are backlogged, that we need to 
catalog and get out of mildewed rooms so they are not destroyed 
forever. We need to be able, somehow, to save those pieces that are in 
the Library of Congress. We are having trouble keeping up.
  Senator Hatfield and I have worked extremely hard to have certain 
people--in fact, this is all their job is--try to do away with the 
backlog at the Library of Congress. We are damaging items in the 
Library of Congress because we do not have money to repair the roof. We 
had to close part of the Botanical Gardens because we did not have 
money to repair the roof. These are not repairs that take $1,000. To 
repair the Library of Congress' roof, which was completed in the 
1880's, is going to cost about $12 million. The Botanical Gardens will 
cost $28 million. We have closed part of the Botanical Gardens, one of 
the treasures of this country, because we do not have the money to do 
it. We are being asked by this reasonable first step to close other 
parts of the Library and, I assume, other parts of the Botanical 
Gardens.
  I have worked very hard with Senator Mack, and I think we have a way 
that we can do some of the things that need to be done. But give us the 
chance to do it. Senator Mack and I, I think, will have a bill we will 
be proud of. Do not do this to me; this is not fair.
  So it is really, Mr. President, up to the Senate to decide whether we 
are prepared to defend our institution and maintain the resources 
necessary to support the proper discharge of our constitutional 
responsibilities.
  I, Mr. President, know it is easy to beat up on Congress, to talk 
about pay raises, to talk about limousines, to talk about health care 
we do not have, and free haircuts which we do not have. It is easy to 
talk about all these things. But let us talk facts--real, honest-to-
goodness facts. If you do that, we cannot do these things that would be 
caused by this amendment--the General Accounting Office, Office of 
Technology Assessment, or our personal staffs.
  So it is really up to the Senate to decide whether we are prepared to 
defend our institution and maintain the resources necessary to support 
the proper discharge of our constitutional responsibilities.
  I certainly hope, Mr. President, that we will be able to do the right 
thing on this amendment. If the budget resolution is amended in this 
regard, it is going to be real, real difficult. The way that Washington 
conducts business will be changed to the detriment of the people of 
this country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, it will be deducted equally from both sides.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator from Nevada is willing 
to yield the remainder of his time, I would like to do the same and 
reserve 10 minutes to close on my amendment. I think we can finish this 
amendment quickly.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator to yield her 
time. I am unable to do that because people have indicated they want to 
speak on this amendment, and I have to protect them.
  I do not know for sure if they will be here.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair notify me when I 
have 10 minutes left to close on my amendment. I will be happy to wait 
for people who might be speaking in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator currently has 41 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 41 minutes 4 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah needs to have time 
yielded from the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I proceed 
for these 5 minutes on an unrelated matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________