[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.
____________________