[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I----
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I am prepared to yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent amendment No. 
2466 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment to the 
desk, momentarily, that will reform the appropriations and budget 
process.
  I have been trying, along with a number of Senators, to reduce 
taxpayer funding wasted on unnecessary programs and to reduce the 
budget deficit. Last year, over 20 separate specific cut proposals were 
voted on in the Senate and only 3 were passed--3 out of 20 separate 
spending cut proposals. Clearly, any attempt to cut programs on the 
Senate floor is a long shot--20 were offered and only 3 passed.
  The prospects are obviously discouraging. Unfortunately, the Senate's 
own rules work against any attempt to cut spending. My amendment 
targets these rules and substantial procedural obstacles faced by any 
legislator who dares to cut appropriations and to cut specific Federal 
spending.
  Every time one of us offers a cut, we face the charge that these 
amendments do not lead necessarily to any cut in the budget deficit. 
Less than a week ago, these exact points were made to discourage 
Senators from supporting an amendment to the HUD-VA appropriations 
bill. Instead of criticizing the cuts on a substantive basis, opponents 
simply reminded Senators that these budget cutters are just tilting at 
windmills.
  The problem is that this argument is valid. The rules governing the 
budget and appropriations process, in fact, make it nearly impossible 
to cut a program and to reduce Federal spending. In reality, any 
attempt to do so would almost certainly require a three-fifths 
supermajority to succeed, and the cuts, even if agreed to by the 
Senate, can be easily reversed in conference. The amendment I am 
offering would create three key spending reforms, which I will describe 
in detail.
  The amendment, first, creates real opportunities to establish or 
redirect spending priorities; second, guarantees Members an ability to 
cut spending with a majority vote; and third, constrains the 
appropriations conference to retain spending cuts agreed to in both 
Houses of Congress.
  Consider how we allocate spending in this body. After Congress 
approves a budget, the appropriations committees are allowed to 
determine discretionary spending within the budget resolution targets. 
While we debate functional categories during consideration of the 
budget, the fact is that these categories, with the possible exception 
of defense, are almost entirely irrelevant to the appropriations 
process. Constrained only by an overall discretionary spending cap, the 
Appropriations Committee distributes spending authority to its 13 
subcommittees.
  Based on virtually no guidelines, tens of billions of dollars are 
allocated to the subcommittees. The rest of Congress never knows how 
this was done or how their constituents' money can be spent until they 
have been handed the results by the Appropriations Committee.
  We need to return this power to the voters by allowing all of their 
representatives to determine how to distribute the money within the 
budget targets and subcommittee jurisdictions.
  That means nothing more than requiring a vote by each House on how 
much money each subcommittee should get. This is the first element of 
the amendment that I am offering.
  Unfortunately, this step alone does not solve the problem. When the 
appropriations bills come to the floor, there are different complex 
rules, but the same problem: The ability to cut spending is greatly 
limited.
  Here is how it works on the House and Senate floors: If you offer an 
amendment to cut a specific spending item, such as, let us say, 
Lawrence Welk's childhood home, and it is adopted, you succeed in an 
amendment that reduces spending for the purpose of purchasing Lawrence 
Welk's home. However, the category that the money came from remains 
intact and the money you saved can be spent somewhere else in that 
category. If you want to avoid the trap that I just described, you also 
have to get approval to cut the overall allocation and lock in that 
cut.
  These allocations and caps are very important in Congress. We have 
rules that say you need 60, not 50, votes to reduce these privileged 
entities, the spending caps. You can raise taxes with 50 votes, but to 
cut spending, you need 60 votes.
  The second part of my amendment would straighten this out. If you 
have the support of a majority, you can then cut spending. You do not 
need 60. You can cut spending with 50 votes.
  But there is one last problem. Even if the House and Senate agree on 
similar program and allocation cuts, the conference committee that 
creates the final bill is virtually free to reinsert whatever funding 
might have been cut. This could not happen under the terms of the third 
part of my amendment.
  These problems are real. And I know firsthand. It happened last year 
in a spending cut amendment that I offered. After the Senate agreed to 
cut $22 million from the high temperature gas reactor the conference 
committee scaled that reduction down to $10 million, half a loaf but 
still $10 million in deficit reduction. Right? Wrong. The energy and 
water appropriations bill, which cut funding for the high-temperature 
gas reactor by $10 million, actually increased in size during the 
conference, gaining an extra $20 million out of thin air.
  So here we had a Senate bill that cut the high-temperature gas 
reactor by $20 million, the conference committee agreed to cut it $10 
million and then the overall appropriation went up $20 million.
  Let me make an analogy of the difficulty between cutting spending 
under the present system as if that applied to basketball.
  Imagine, for example, you make a free throw. In other words, you cut 
a specific program. But it does not count. Unless you go back to the 3-
point line and make the shot from there, too; that is, cut the 
allocation or cap with 60 votes. But it does not count again unless you 
go back to the half court line and sink a shot from there; and that is, 
keep the cuts in a conference report, all of that in order to get 
credit for a single free throw or single specific spending reduction.
  Mr. President, we have created this maze, and we can straighten it 
out. We have to turn the process around so that it is as easy to cut 
spending in the future as it is to protect spending now.
  We need a new system which would be created by the adoption of the 
reforms that I am suggesting. Again, there are three key elements to 
the proposal. First, we need to give Congress the right to debate and 
set priorities for discretionary spending. These are the most 
fundamental decisions, and they are out of reach of most in Congress. I 
propose we put these decisions before Congress for approval or 
modification by majority vote.
  The bill would require a separate resolution to allocate spending 
among appropriations subcommittees. Both Houses would have to agree 
beforehand on how much could be spent by each House's subcommittee.
  Second, we need to change the rules that prevent cuts in the 
appropriations spending from being actual budget cuts. These obstacles, 
which were put in place to hinder an increase in spending, represent 
bad policy when the goal is deficit reduction. The legislation that I 
have introduced would allow cuts in programs and cuts in spending. 
There would be several options. First, follow the present status quo. 
Cut the money for a specific program but allow it to go back to the 
Appropriations Subcommittee for reallocation elsewhere. Second, cut the 
program and cut the current year's allocation, thereby reducing the 
budget deficit. Third, cut a program, cut the current budget, and force 
a reduction in future budgets. All of these approaches would require 
only a majority vote, not the current supermajority of 60 votes.
  Third, real accountability is needed in conference committee where 
expensive deals are often cut. Even when the House and Senate each cut 
programs, the compromise may turn out to be that no program is cut. The 
amendment I offer would change Senate rules to prohibit an 
appropriations conference committee from reporting a bill that cut 
spending less than either the House or Senate language. Even if the 
House and Senate cuts are in different programs, the conference will 
have to reduce spending by at a minimum the smaller of the two amounts.
  In other words, if the House agrees to $100 million in cuts in a 
particular appropriations bill, and the Senate agrees to $200 million 
on the same bill, the conference would be constrained to produce a 
report with at least $100 million in cuts included.
  Are these budget reforms the answer to the deficit crisis? No, 
clearly not. Entitlement and tax expenditure outlays are both growing 
rapidly and neither can be addressed by changing congressional 
procedures. Even as we tighten controls on discretionary spending, we 
must move forward to confront the huge growth in the other two-thirds 
of the budget.
  Americans are right when they think that we are truly inspired when 
it comes to spending. We need to bring the same zeal to cutting 
spending. We need basic reforms which assure that spending cuts are 
spending cuts, not just reason for another press release.
  Mr. President, I know this amendment is not exactly germane to the 
defense appropriations bill. However, the Budget Committee does not 
appear to be moving this legislation this Congress, and I believe it is 
critical that these procedures be revised prior to the next budget 
cycle. We cannot continue as we have been. We have to create a better 
balance between those who seek to cut spending and those who wish to 
retain spending. It is really that simple. To create that balance is 
the purpose of the amendment.
  Mr. President, if I could have the attention of other Members in the 
Chamber, this is a very critical amendment. When we did the budget bill 
last summer, in August, everybody stood on the floor and made big 
speeches, saying, ``I believe we ought to cut spending. I believe we 
need to cut Federal spending.'' Then after we passed that budget 
resolution, we had appropriations bills that came before the Senate. 
Appropriations bills are where the spending actually takes place, in 
discretionary spending. That is where the money goes from the taxpayer 
to the project or purpose designated by the Congress, the 
appropriations process. There were 20 separate amendments on that 
appropriations process last year to cut spending. Only 3 of them 
succeeded. Only three of the 20 actually passed. But the catch is that 
even on those three, when they passed, they did not cut spending.
  Now, I know that is hard for the American people to understand. Here 
is a Senator in the Chamber of the Senate. He stands up and says: I 
offer an amendment to cut spending for Lawrence Welk's home, for some 
boondoggle in Massachusetts or Arkansas or New Jersey, or wherever. I 
offer an amendment to cut spending for that purpose.
  The amendment passes--51 votes. Is spending actually cut? No. Why 
not? Because the rule says that you do not actually cut spending unless 
you cut the overall budget cap. But to cut the overall budget cap 
requires 60 votes--not 50 votes, 60 votes--which means that if I offer 
an amendment to cut spending for what I think is a pork barrel project, 
I need 60 votes to actually reduce what the Federal Government spends 
by that amount.
  Now, if I wanted to raise taxes, I would only need 50 votes. If I 
wanted to raise taxes, I could stand up and do an amendment; 50 votes 
is all I need to raise taxes. But if I wanted to cut spending on an 
appropriations bill, I would need 60 votes.
  I say it is about time we end that and we allow someone to stand up 
in the Senate Chamber during an appropriations bill, identify what he 
or she believes is excessive spending, propose an amendment to cut that 
spending, and successfully cut the spending if 51 votes is achieved.
  Now, that is a modest but important reform. But then we have another 
situation. Let us say a proposal gets to conference. The subcommittee 
can come out of conference with a higher overall budget number than 
when it went into conference. In my view, that should not be permitted. 
Why do we want to have a system where I can cut a proposal over here 
and the House can cut the same bill by the same amount, and then we 
come out of conference with more than either House originally included? 
It is incredible, but that happens. It happened to me last year. We 
ought to be able to say, if you are going to cut spending, you actually 
cannot spend more in conference than either the House or the Senate 
spent. That is common sense. And yet that is not permitted.
  Mr. President, of course, then the question is, well, how do you 
prevent the shifting of priorities --the decision taken to decrease 
spending for children and increase spending for defense or the decision 
to increase spending for transportation but decrease spending for the 
Congress.
  Right now, all of those decisions are not made by the Senate. They 
are made by the Appropriations Committee, which has the authority to 
allocate under the overall budget cap for discretionary spending among 
its various committees. So the Appropriations Committee makes decisions 
which, rightfully, all of us have been sent to Congress to make.
  Now, people say, well, you always have the budget debate. That is 
right; we have a budget resolution. But there, of course, you do not 
cut spending programs. In the budget resolution, you only cut the 
overall cap, not the specific spending program. So the only way around 
this is to say in addition to a budget resolution and before the 
appropriations process actually works, there should be a subcommittee 
resolution for appropriations in which the whole Congress decides what 
it wants to spend for the Transportation Subcommittee, for the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, for the Health Appropriations 
Subcommittee. Now, within that particular category or area under the 
jurisdiction of that subcommittee there is wide discretion. But let us 
stop shifting priorities within the Appropriations Committee. Let us 
shift priorities within the Senate as a whole.
  So, Mr. President, that is the amendment I would be offering at the 
appropriate time. I have not offered the amendment at this time because 
I would like to hear from the distinguished manager or another 
interested party about this amendment.
  So I would be prepared to yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have been advised that the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee wishes to be heard on this 
amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold.
  Mr. INOUYE. I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will the Chair state the pending business before the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the committee 
amendment to the pending bill, H.R. 4650.


                           Amendment No. 2483

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, if there is no objection to the 
distinguished managers of the bill, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside and that I be allowed to send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2483.

  Mr. BREAUX. 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:

       On page 41 on line 9 after ``(1744)'' insert: ``: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Defense shall provide a 
     recommendation for additional funding from the Department of 
     Defense to finance shipbuilding loan guarantees under Title 
     XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1271)''

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues and the 
distinguished managers of the bill. We have discussed my suggested 
amendment, and I would start by commending both the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. In the 
defense appropriations report that is presented to this body there is 
the language on page 349 dealing with maritime reform and the committee 
in its wisdom states that:

       The submission of the administration's initiative to 
     revitalize our national merchant marine and domestic 
     shipbuilding industry is now pending before the committee of 
     jurisdiction. The committee believes that the Department of 
     Defense has a central stake in the viability of our national 
     maritime industry and should be a participant in this 
     initiative. The committee hopes that action on the maritime 
     reform initiative will be completed this year and that the 
     Department of Defense role will be further defined.

  Mr. President, I would say that my suggested amendment is an effort 
to try to give some sense of direction to the Department of Defense 
about this very important endeavor. It is clear as we talk about how we 
spend money for our national defense that it is appropriate that this 
country have the ships to carry the men and the women into areas of 
conflict around the world in which we find ourselves engaged. We need 
the ships and the maritime industry in order to deliver the supplies, 
the equipment, and the food that is necessary to maintain a strong 
fighting force for this country.
  In addition, Mr. President, it is very clear that we should also have 
a very strong shipbuilding base in this country with shipbuilding 
installations around the country that can turn out the necessary 
vessels which will carry the men, the manpower--men and women--as well 
as supplies to meet our national defense concerns. So I think what is 
clear is that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is on the right 
track as we see the cut back in military installations.
  I saw in the paper this morning, in the Washington Post, the 
potential prospect--I say ``potential'' only--of the Navy moving to 
close Norfolk Naval Shipyard, a major installation for building naval 
vessels in this country. If we move in that direction, it is therefore 
even more important that the civilian shipyard capability be 
strengthened.
  The bottom line is that my own personal recommendation is that the 
Department of Defense contribute to the maritime industry which is so 
important to their success. My amendment merely says that the Secretary 
of Defense shall recommend additional funding from the Department of 
Defense to finance shipbuilding loan guarantees under title XI of the 
Merchant Marine Act. This is an appropriate, a proper, and I think a 
very wise way for the Defense Department to be involved in helping the 
U.S. maritime industry.
  I point out that just this past week the administration approved 
approximately $1 billion in title XI loan guarantees--loan guarantees--
to build vessels in private U.S. shipyards. These vessels that are 
built for U.S. companies would be on call by our national defense, by 
our military, in times of a national emergency. Many of these vessels 
are the type of vessels that the Navy would need in times of national 
emergency: transportation vessels, vessels that can carry containers; 
vessels that have tanker capability that could carry fuel, and supplies 
for our military needs.
  So it is very important that the Department of Defense have a strong 
shipbuilding capability in this country to meet the needs of the 
future, for the Navy and for the rest of the national defense. It is 
important as well that we have vessels built in America that we can 
call on in times of national emergency.
  So what this amendment does is merely to recommend to the Department 
of Defense--and actually require them--to make recommendations as to 
how we can obtain additional funding for the title XI program.
  I commend both the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Inouye, for their 
good work, strong support, and for recognizing that a strong maritime 
industry is critical to a strong national defense.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the managers of this bill wish to commend 
the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for his leadership, and for 
his creative and innovative approach to this crisis that we face today.
  Like the Senator from Louisiana, we are very much concerned about the 
ability of our shipyards to survive the current drawdown and downturn 
in shipbuilding.
  I think we should remind our colleagues that this bill contains funds 
for just four Navy combatant ships. This is the first time in the past 
five decades where the Congress of the United States is appropriating 
funds for only four ships.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana offers a very 
creative approach to our industrial base problem. As he has stated, 
while it may be difficult to find the funds to meet his proposal, I am 
supportive of his overall approach.
  I recommend the adoption of this amendment. We have no objection to 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii in commending our friend from Louisiana. I, too, support the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana.
  The amendment (No. 2483) was agreed to.


              Amendment Nos. 2484, 2485, and 2486 En Bloc

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask that the committee amendment be set 
aside. We would like to take up three amendments that have been cleared 
by the managers and leadership of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the first amendment is by the Senator from 
Nevada [Mr. Reid] to provide funding for the common automatic recovery 
system; the second is by Senator Pressler to require quarterly reports 
on DOD costs incurred in implementing Security Council resolutions and 
U.S. foreign policy resolutions; and the third is by Senator Glenn to 
provide up to $10.5 million for procurement of equipment for the Joint 
Training, Analysis and Simulation Center for the U.S. Atlantic Command.
  All three measures have been cleared by the leadership. I ask 
unanimous consent that they be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2484, 2485, and 2486) were agreed to.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:


                           Amendment No. 2484

  Mr. INOUYE offered an amendment No. 2484 for Mr. Reid.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the common automatic recovery system)

       On page 34, line 2, strike out the period at the end and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $7,000,000 shall be made 
     available only for the procurement of the Common Automatic 
     Recovery System for the Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
     System.''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to provide 
funding to use the common automatic recovery system--commonly referred 
to as CARS--in the Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle system--commonly 
known as the Pioneer UAV system. I would like to first explain what a 
UAV is, then I will explain what CARS is and why it is a wise 
investment.
  Unmanned aerial vehicles [UAV's] are used by the military to gather 
intelligence behind enemy lines during combat. A UAV can be launched 
from a runway on land or a ship off the coast of hostile territory. The 
UAV then flies over enemy held areas to gather information. Because it 
is unmanned, there is no risk of losing a pilot to the enemy. After 
collecting information, the UAV returns to friendly territory and is 
recovered by either landing on a short runway or being flown into a net 
on the back of a ship. UAV's were successfully used during Operation 
Desert Shield/Storm.
  The currently deployed Pioneer UAV's are recovered by a ground or 
ship based pilot who uses a remote control to guide the UAV into the 
recovery runway or net. This process is particularly difficult when 
trying to recover a UAV into a net on the back of a ship in heavy seas. 
In addition, pilots cannot recover UAV's at night or in bad weather. 
Even with extensive pilot training, damage has been very high, 
including total losses at sea, during UAV recovery operations.
  Because of the high rate of damage and operational limitations at 
night and in bad weather, the Congress previously directed the research 
be done on improved methods of recovering UAV's. As a result, the 
Common Automatic Recovery System [CARS] was developed. This system will 
automatically control the UAV during its final approach to the recovery 
runway or net. It eliminates the need for extensive pilot training for 
recovery operations. CARS can be used at night and in bad weather, thus 
greatly increasing the capabilities of the UAV system and, at the same 
time, drastically reducing the risk of damage to the UAV's.
  The Department of Defense is planning to incorporate CARS into all 
UAV systems that are now under development. However, they do not plan 
to retrofit it into the Pioneer UAV System that is currently in use. 
Instead, they will continue to experience unnecessary damage losses and 
be operationally limited by weather and darkness. I find this to be 
unacceptable.
  A modest investment in retrofitting CARS into the Pioneer UAV System 
will pay for itself in about a year, particularly if used on ship-based 
UAVs. Therefore, I have offered this amendment to require that DOD make 
this investment.


                           amendment no. 2485

  Mr. INOUYE offered an amendment No. 2485 for Mr. Pressler.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require quarterly reports on Department of Defense costs 
incurred in implementing Security Council resolutions and United States 
                      foreign policy resolutions)

       On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec. 8121. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit, on a 
     quarterly basis, a report to the appropriate congressional 
     committees setting forth all costs (including incremental 
     costs) incurred by the Department of Defense during the 
     preceding quarter in implementing or supporting resolutions 
     of the United Nations Security Council, including any such 
     resolution calling for international sanctions, international 
     peacekeeping operations, and humanitarian missions undertaken 
     by the Department of Defense. The quarterly report shall 
     include an aggregate of all such Department of Defense costs 
     by operation or mission.
       (b) The Secretary of Defense shall detail in the quarterly 
     reports all efforts made to seek credit against past United 
     Nations expenditures and all efforts made to seek 
     compensation from the United Nations for costs incurred by 
     the Department of Defense in implementing and supporting 
     United Nations activities.
       (c) As used in this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means--
       (1) the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate;
       (2) the Committees on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate; and
       (3) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.


                           amendment no. 2486

  Mr. INOUYE offered an amendment No. 2486 for Mr. Glenn.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide up to $10.5 million for procurement of equipment 
 for the Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center for the United 
                        States Atlantic Command)

       On page 29, line 15, before the period, insert: ``: 
     Provided, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, 
     up to $10,500,000 may be used for the procurement of command, 
     control, communications, and computer equipment for a Joint 
     Training, Analysis and Simulation Center for the United 
     States Atlantic Command.''

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendments were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2487

       (Purpose: To allocate funding to the Integrated Product and 
     Process Development Program)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Senator 
Harkin and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mr. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2487.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 39, line 2, to add after the word ``section'', the 
     following: ``Provided further, that, of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $5.6 million shall be available 
     for the Integrated Product and Process Development Program''.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment is to allocate funds to go 
to the Integrated Product and Process Development Program. It has been 
studied and approved by the managers of this bill.
  We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 2487) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


        Amendment No. 2488 to the Committee Amendment on page 2

      (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
      congressional timetable for considering health care reform)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised the pending amendment 
is the committee amendment to the bill.
  Mr. HELMS. This is an amendment to that committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2488 to the committee amendment on page 2.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . RESPONSIBLE HEALTH CARE REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) health care reform proposals to be considered in August 
     1994 in the Senate and the House of Representatives will 
     significantly affect the health care received by each and 
     every American;
       (2) such health care reform proposals impose many new and 
     increased taxes which will be borne by all working Americans;
       (3) all health care reform proposal that require employers 
     to purchase and pay for health insurance for their employees 
     will result in hundreds of thousands of Americans losing 
     their jobs;
       (4) most Americans oppose having the Federal Government 
     force everyone to buy a standard package of health insurance 
     coverage that is the same for everyone, regardless of age, 
     gender, or religion;
       (5) an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that 
     Congress should change only those parts of the health care 
     system that do not work and avoid getting the Federal 
     Government more involved in health care than it already is;
       (6) an overwhelming majority of Americans have stated their 
     belief that health care reforms being considered by Congress 
     will lead to health care rationing;
       (7) by a wide margin, the American people prefer that 
     rather than rush to enact a health reform bill in 1994, 
     Congress should take time to debate this issue and do it 
     right, even if the means putting off passing bill until next 
     year;
       (8) despite the wishes of the American people, the 
     congressional leadership has imposed arbitrary deadlines on 
     the consideration of health care reform by both Houses of 
     Congress;
       (9) in our democracy, the American people should have 
     maximum input into the manner in which health care is 
     reformed; and
       (10) the mid-term congressional elections will provide the 
     American people with a means to express their voices on the 
     shape that health care reform should take.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that major health care reform to too important to enact in a 
     rushed fashion, and Congress should take whatever time is 
     necessary to do it right by deferring action until next year 
     to give Congress and the American people ample time to 
     obtain, read, and consider all alternatives and make wise 
     choices, unless the Senate has had the full opportunity to 
     debate and amend the proposal after the Congressional Budget 
     Office estimates have been made available.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this is the identical amendment that I 
offered to the Labor-HHS bill except for the addition which we tried to 
offer to the amendment on the Labor-HHS bill before, and there was an 
objection to it.
  So in order to get the additional modification in, I am offering it 
on this bill and tomorrow, when the Labor-HHS vote occurs, or the vote 
on my amendment, I intend to move to table my own amendment so that 
this amendment can be considered by the Senate.
  I shall move to table my same amendment, virtually, on Labor-HHS, and 
urge all Senators to vote to table it and let this pending amendment be 
the amendment in question.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, is the bill open for amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With consent to set aside the pending 
amendment, the bill will be open for amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside in order to call up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2489

 (Purpose: To reduce the amount for procurement of Trident II missiles)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Conrad, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Dorgan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2489.

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

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted at line 8 on 
     page 25, add the following: ``$1,418,470,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1997: Provided, 
     That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, none may be 
     obligated or expended on the Trident II Missile program.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, it should not take long to debate this 
amendment, but I want my colleagues to know that we are talking about 
$2.2 billion. That is roughly how much I was proposing to save this 
morning on Milstar. So I have done my civic duty today by giving the 
Senate an opportunity to cut $4 billion in unnecessary spending.
  The thing that makes this rather poignant in my own mind is that we 
are getting ready to take up health care this very evening, probably 
the most defining moment in the history of the Congress, the most 
complex legislation I have ever seen in my 20 years in the Senate.
  We would like to do more, except the cost of doing more is 
prohibitive. I would love to see universal coverage. I would love to 
see every man, woman, and child in the country get a good night's sleep 
in the knowledge that if anything happens to them physically, they have 
adequate health care to take care of themselves.
  Mr. President, I was covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield in 1964. I was 
a country lawyer. You are at this very moment being addressed by the 
entire South Franklin County Bar Association. I was the only lawyer in 
a little town of 100 people.
  Suddenly, we have a cataclysm in our household, and I wind up taking 
my daughter from this little country town in Arkansas to Boston 
Children's Hospital, which will always be to me the finest children's 
facility in America, and I do not denigrate the others because I know 
they are wonderful. But my daughter is now 32 years old--she was 4 
then--a cum laude graduate of Georgetown Law School.
  But we spent 6 weeks in Boston. The health care policy I had covered 
virtually everything. I had just won a $83,000 verdict, the biggest 
verdict ever rendered in my home county, and had just settled that 
lawsuit and we had to take off to Boston with my daughter.
  Now she is going to get mad at me when she hears I told this story.
  All the time I was there, I bet you my wife Betty and I had 10 
conversations about what happens to the poor people.
  We were not affluent. If I had not just gotten a $20,000 fee, I do 
not know what I would have done. I would have robbed a bank if I had 
to. Fortunately, I did not have to.
  But we were there 6 weeks. The cost of staying there was pretty 
exorbitant by our standards. I never will forget when they told me that 
my daughter's room would be $44 a day. I almost fainted. Fifteen 
dollars a day is the highest price I had ever heard of in Arkansas.
  And then I lost all that practice, being in Boston for 6 weeks.
  But, as I was about to say, Betty and I had innumerable conversations 
about what poor people do when their children have this kind of 
condition. I will tell you what they do. They watch them die.
  And now, we are getting ready to take up a bill--and a lot of people 
do not want any kind of reform.
  On Saturday morning, I was riding in a parade--15,000 people on both 
sides of the street--and the only thing I heard was from about three 
different people along the route, saying, ``Senator, vote no on health 
care. No universal coverage. No health care reform.'' That seemed 
strange to me.
  Considering the experience I have had, I know that 85 percent of the 
people in this country are covered. I assume that a good big portion of 
them are well covered.
  But, as I said, earlier this morning in another debate, we spent $200 
billion a year on Medicare to make sure that our elderly, over 65 years 
of age, are taken care of. We have 11 million children in this country 
of working parents who work where there is no health insurance. The 
most vulnerable among us, the 11 million children, have no coverage. 
Senator Mitchell's bill tries to address that.
  He also says no pregnant woman should go unattended. What is so bad 
about that? What is this country so upset about on this? Are those not 
highly laudable, humane provisions that all of us should champion?
  Well, the reason we cannot do more, Mr. President, is because we do 
not have the money. And one of the reasons we do not have the money is 
because we keep spending money on things like this.
  Completely aside from health care, I am not suggesting that you take 
the $2 billion or $4 billion I am trying to save and transfer it over 
to health care; I am saying go ahead and leave it in defense.
  They say they are destitute down at the Pentagon. They say they are 
going to have to cut the sailing days of our ships, they are going to 
have to cut the number of leave days of our sailors, and they are going 
to have to cut this and that.
  The chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend from Hawaii, the 
manager of this bill, says this is a bare-bones bill. There are only 17 
or 18 combat aircraft in it and no tanks.
  One of the reasons is because we keep spending money like this. What 
is ``this''? This is the D-5 Trident II missile.
  Let me give just a short lesson on what we are talking about. Many 
years ago, we decided we would build 18 Trident submarines. Each 
submarine would have 24 tubes to accommodate 24 missiles. Each missile 
would carry 8 warheads.
  Now, Mr. President, as of this moment, 14 of those Trident submarines 
have been delivered to the Navy. The other four will be delivered 
between now and 1997. We will take delivery on the 18th Trident 
submarine in 1997. It is a magnificent submarine--without peer.
  Further, Mr. President, of those 18 submarines, 8 of them are in the 
Pacific Ocean, called our Pacific Submarine Fleet. The other six on 
which we have taken delivery are in the Atlantic. The remaining four, 
which are going to be delivered over the next 4 years, will also go 
into the Atlantic Fleet. So we will have 8 Trident submarines in the 
Pacific and 10 in the Atlantic.
  Mr. President, under the START I Treaty that we executed with the 
Soviet Union, we are permitted almost 3,500 submarine launched 
warheads. Actually, the 18 submarines, each carrying 24 missiles with 8 
warheads, 192 warheads per submarine, comes out to about 3,450 
warheads.
  But, under the START II Treaty, that gets halved. We are only 
permitted a total of 1,750 warheads on submarines, or half the capacity 
we have on these 18 Trident submarines.
  This is a separate debate and I will not belabor it. But instead of 
halving the number of warheads on each missile from 8 to 4 in order to 
reach the 1,750 level, I would prefer to put 12 missiles on each 
submarine and leave 8 warheads and get the 1,750 and save all the 
costs; namely, 12 missiles per submarine. But I lost that debate.
  The President of the United States took issue with my proposal to 
simply put 12 missiles on each submarine, fill the others with concrete 
or something, and save ourselves about $7 billion. That is what we 
should have done. History will record that old Senator Bumpers was 
right when he proposed that on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But that 
debate is over.
  The debate now is thusly: The Navy first said they wanted about 600 
D-5 missiles. Then they wanted 428. Bear in mind, one thing I forgot to 
mention, these eight submarines in the Pacific have what are called C-4 
missiles. They are good missiles, they have a long range, they are 
almost as accurate as the D-5. And the Atlantic Fleet of 10 submarines 
will carry the D-5 missile, which has a little longer range and is more 
accurate and also has what they call a hard target kill capability. In 
other words, it can bust a silo and a command center that has been 
hardened.

  We have 400 W-88 warheads and the rest of them are what we call W-76, 
which is what all of our Pacific Fleet carries and what a good big 
portion of the Atlantic Fleet will carry, something--that is another 
debate.
  But what I am saying is the Navy originally wanted over 400 D-5 
missiles. I do not know what on Earth they were going to do with 400 
but that is what they wanted. They wanted to flight test six missiles a 
year. Those suckers are expensive. The Air Force, which is in charge of 
the Minuteman missile in this country, the Minuteman III--the Air Force 
says they feel perfectly comfortable testing three missiles a year. But 
the Navy said they wanted to test six a year. That is blowing up a lot. 
A lot of missiles. There is a saying, ``that is an awful lot of sugar 
for a dime.'' Well, this is a little bit of sugar for a lot of money. 
So then the Navy decided they could get by on 389. And now they think 
they can get by on 347. They keep coming my way.
  But this amendment would allow them 319 missiles. It would stop the 
production of the D-5 at 319 and save $2.23 billion between now and the 
turn of the century, the year 2000.
  I can just hear some people around here saying what are you talking 
about? Torpedoing the D-5 line? We are going to be short a few missiles 
sometime between now and the next 17 years. Some of those 10 
submarines, all of which carry 24 missiles--some of those 10 may have 
only 23.
  Let me tell you what my amendment would do. If we adopted this 
amendment to stop the D-5 procurement right now at 319, between now and 
the year 2011 we will be able to fill 96.6 percent of the Tubes on our 
Atlantic Fleet submarines and save $2.23 billion. You give up less than 
one missile per submarine during 3 years.
  Is that a risk worth taking over the next 17 years? Look at this 
chart right here. Over the next 35 years, the worst-case scenario would 
be that in the year 2018 we would have a shortfall of 132 warheads. 
That is 33 missiles. That means each submarine instead of carrying 24 
missiles would carry 20. You think about that. All of us in this body--
most of us will be dead and buried by then. We will only have 3,364 
warheads. Is that not enough to ruin your whole afternoon? If we were 
to fire those 3,364, what do you think will be left of this planet? 
Nothing. Let me repeat, for a 4-percent reduction in readiness you save 
$2.2 billion. And this still allows the Navy to test four missiles a 
year.
  In all fairness, they make a pretty good case for flight testing four 
because in the submarine fleet you fire from different places at 
different targets and it is important, I suppose, to do those four 
tests. Mr. President, look at this. There it is, the total requirements 
in 1998, 4 years from now: 320 missiles and we will have delivered 319. 
We will be short one missile. And you save $2.3 billion.
  I could rant and rave all day long about how foolish it is to 
continue buying these missiles. Cold war rhetoric is still with us. 
People still think if we have a submarine out there with 23 missiles 
instead of 24, that is going to be the deciding factor in the nuclear 
war with the Russians. Here the Russians are, trying to get the United 
States to give them the money to dismantle their missiles and we 
continue to build them as though the cold war is going at full blast.
  I want you to look at this. Let us assume for argument purposes just 
a moment that we had a 33-missile shortfall or 132-warhead shortfall 
and we were left with only 3,364 warheads. Under START II, we are 
allowed 1,750 on our submarine fleet and roughly 1,750 in our 
Minutemans and bombers. So with my amendment we are going to be down to 
3,364 warheads. What does that do?
  Look at this hypothetical list of targets: 500 on Russian silos, 
bases and command centers; 300 on industrial centers, which destroys 70 
percent of their industrial base. Every Russian city with over 50,000 
people, 579 warheads on those cities; 1,000 warheads on China; North 
Korea targets and anything else you want. And you still have about 
1,200 warheads left over. We have destroyed the planet--certainly we 
have destroyed everybody that is a potential enemy; we still have 1,200 
warheads left over. And yet my amendment will fail because people will 
say if we have a submarine with space for 24 missiles you ought to fill 
it up.
  Let me belabor one more point I made this morning. I have not had an 
answer to it. I will repeat. Last weekend there was a story in the Post 
on military downsizing.
  The Pentagon was talking about how terrible it is, how awful it is 
going to be to get by on $250 billion. Bear in mind that the Defense 
Department gets more than all the other domestic discretionary spending 
combined. Health care, education, transportation--everything--all of 
those programs that are called domestic discretionary spending--
national parks, you name it, dozens of them--the Pentagon gets more 
than all of those put together. Education is a disaster in this country 
right now. Crime is out of control. We cannot pass health care because 
we cannot afford it. We just go merrily along doing the same thing we 
have always done. And I come over here every August and September and 
beat my head against that wall trying to cut some spending.
  But in addition to that article on downsizing, the General Accounting 
Office comes out last Thursday and says the Pentagon has understated 
the cost of what they want to do by $150 billion over the next 5 years. 
I am trying my best to help them find that $150 billion, and they will 
not let me.
  Mr. President, I invite my 99 colleagues, and particularly those who 
are going to vote no on this, to come to the floor of the Senate and 
tell us their solutions to finding that $150 billion.
  Les Aspin said last year they had understated the Pentagon's needs by 
$20 billion, but he felt sure he was going to find it. And one of the 
places Secretary Aspin said they were going to find it is to not give a 
cost-of-living increase to the military. That is going to save a lot of 
money, he said.
  Do you know how long it took the U.S. Senate to reverse that and 
provide that cost-of-living to our military people and our retirees? It 
took just long enough for the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] to 
offer the amendment; that is how long it took to reverse that decision. 
So that is gone. That leaves Les Aspin, and now Secretary Perry still 
trying to find not $20 billion but $150 billion.
  I tell you what I will do. I not ought make this offer. I was going 
to say I will stand on my head on the dome of this Capitol for every 
dollar that is cut out of this bill. We do not ever cut anything here. 
We come over here and shout to the rooftops trying to make sense, save 
a little money, trying to help the Defense Department come up with what 
they have to come up with, and them kicking, screaming and fighting 
every step of the way.
  So, Mr. President, I know what the votes will be when they are 
finally counted. As I said, I have come over here every fall and fought 
these battles, and won a couple pretty good ones. We did not win in the 
Senate. The House killed a couple of them. We have never killed 
anything in the Senate in the 20 years I have been here. But I have a 
pretty good time, it keeps me up to speed on what the Pentagon is up to 
and how they are spending the money.
  One of the amendments I offered last year and the year before was to 
cut $1 billion out of the intelligence budget. I made up my mind this 
year, I am not going to take that one on. The press says that $28 
billion is spent on intelligence in the country. You would think the 
KGB was going to be in the Senate Chamber sitting in one of these seats 
if we cut a dollar of that budget. God knows they almost made it--that 
guy Ames.
  The more you learn about Ames over at the CIA, the more you realize 
how inefficient the CIA is. That is the most bizarre chapter I ever 
read, and I am telling you what I have read in the papers and not what 
I have heard in classified briefings.
  Warning after warning. This guy is driving a Mercedes, or a Porsche, 
bought a $500,000 home and paid cash for it. They ought to have checked 
him out back in 1987, and they finally checked him out in 1993. 
Meanwhile, he has compromised about half the secrets of the CIA.
  I thought, well, I am just tired of beating my head against the wall 
on that one, and this morning I pick up the paper and they are building 
a $310 million building out at Dulles Airport that nobody seems to know 
about. The chairman of the Intelligence Committee said he had never 
been told about it. Members of the committee say, ``I've never been 
told about it.'' There are two or three Senators brave enough to stand 
up and say, ``I think they did mention that to me one time.'' But it is 
only $310 million--what is that?--and a health care bill that requires 
billions.
  So, Mr. President, I have expended most of my thoughts and most of my 
energy on this. I yield the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have listened to my friend from 
Arkansas, and I agree with the Senator that we have enough warheads in 
our arsenals to destroy this planet 10 times over. We do not disagree 
on that.
  And so I can understand the anguish and the questions in the minds of 
my fellow Americans when they ask the question: Why is it that this 
country must maintain an arsenal when the Berlin Wall has crumbled? It 
crumbled 5 years ago. The Soviet Union is no more. Why should we 
maintain a force of this magnitude?

  Mr. President, I think a brief review of the history of that period 
might help us.
  A year before the walls came tumbling down, the Soviets had 10,555 
warheads and 2,684 platforms or delivery vehicles--10,555. The latest 
count is 9,569, a reduction of about 1,000. And as my colleagues are 
well aware, we have already by previous funding spent the sum of $1.2 
billion to assist the Soviets, the former Soviets, to dismantle 
warheads. In this bill, we have an additional $400 million for that 
purpose--a total sum of $1.6 billion--$1.6 billion--and for that amount 
the Russians have dismantled about 100 warheads.
  I think all of us should realize that all of these missiles, 9,569 
warheads, are operational at this moment. They are not dismantled. Some 
may have been retargeted. They may not be aimed at Washington, DC, or 
New York City, or Los Angeles, or San Francisco. But it is a simple 
matter to target them again. Just a flick of the computer will do that.
  We have two treaties, START I and START II, but neither treaty has 
been ratified.
  We were all pleased when the walls came tumbling down. We were all 
pleased when the Soviet Union found itself crumbling. But then we began 
to ask ourselves the question: Will the new arrangement be stable? We 
should have asked the question: How stable is the Government of the new 
Russia? Will Mr. Boris Yeltsin be around a year from now? Or, for that 
matter, will he be around 6 months from now?
  The Russian security apparatus is so unstable that we, the people of 
the United States, must spend funds to send our FBI there to assist 
them to deal with crime.
  Mr. President, I wish I could tell myself and my colleagues that Mr. 
Yeltsin will succeed in bringing about democracy; that Mr. Yeltsin will 
be in charge a year from now. But all of us who have taken time to 
follow the press reports know very well that what is happening in 
Russia today is rather frightening. I am certain most of us recall the 
bombardment of the Parliament building. It was quite a sight to see--
Russians shooting at Russians. We saw the Vice President of Russia 
being arrested. What happens to the 9,569 warheads? Mr. Yeltsin tells 
us today they are not targeted to the United States. What if we have a 
new leader there?
  I wish I could come before my colleagues and say, ``This year, we are 
cutting defense by half, and we are going to use that money to help the 
poor, to help our educational system.'' But then, if we had done that 
10 years ago, I am certain all of us will agree that the walls would 
not have crumbled; that the geopolitical situation would be different 
today. Somehow, mankind with all its wisdom is not smart enough to 
know. We have not found the secret to prevent confrontation, as much as 
we want to. Every major religion tells us the secret to success. We 
have the Ten Commandments. Yet, if we ask ourselves: Do we live up to 
the terms of the Ten Commandments? If we are honest with our ourselves, 
we will have to say possibly every Wednesday; one day out of seven we 
may do that.
  Mr. President, the millennium has not arrived. Someday, I hope it 
will. When the time comes, I would be standing next to my friend from 
Arkansas, not to do away with two or three missiles, but to do away 
with all the missiles. But today is not that day.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside 
the pending amendment so that I might offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2490

(Purpose: To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require that 
  the allocations of budget authority and budget outlays made by the 
    Committee on Appropriations of each House be agreed to by joint 
resolution and to permit amendments that reduce appropriations to also 
 reduce the relevant allocation and the discretionary spending limits)

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2490.

  Mr. BRADLEY. 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 the bill, add the following:
         TITLE ____--APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

     SECTION ____1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Appropriations Process 
     Accountability Act''.

     SEC. ____2. JOINT RESOLUTION ALLOCATING APPROPRIATED 
                   SPENDING.

       (a) Committee Appropriations Resolution.--Section 302(b) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Committee Suballocations.--
       ``(1) Committees on appropriations.--(A) As soon as 
     practical after a concurrent resolution on the budget is 
     agreed to, the Committee on Appropriations of each House 
     shall, after consulting with Committee on Appropriations of 
     the other House, report to its House an original joint 
     resolution on appropriations allocations (referred to in the 
     paragraph as the `joint resolution') that contains the 
     following:
       ``(i) A subdivision among its subcommittees of the 
     allocation of budget outlays and new budget authority 
     allocated to it in the joint explanatory statement 
     accompanying the conference report on such concurrent 
     resolution.
       ``(ii) A subdivision of the amount with respect to each 
     such subcommittee between controllable amounts and all other 
     amounts.

     The joint resolution shall be placed on the calendar pending 
     disposition of such joint resolution in accordance with this 
     subsection.
       ``(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), the provisions 
     of section 305 for the consideration in the Senate of 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget and conference reports 
     thereon shall also apply to the consideration in the Senate 
     of joint resolutions reported under this paragraph and 
     conference reports thereon.
       ``(ii)(I) Debate in the Senate on any joint resolution 
     reported under this paragraph, and all amendments thereto and 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall 
     be limited to not more than 20 hours.
       ``(II) The Committee on Appropriations shall manage the 
     joint resolution.
       ``(C) The allocations of the Committees on Appropriations 
     shall not take effect until the joint resolution is enacted 
     into law.
       ``(2) Other committees.--As soon as practicable after a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget is agreed to every 
     committee of the House and Senate (other than the Committees 
     on Appropriations) to which an allocation was made in such 
     joint explanatory statement shall, after consulting with the 
     committee or committees of the other House to which all or 
     part of its allocation was made--
       ``(A) subdivide such allocation among its subcommittees or 
     among programs over which it has jurisdiction; and
       ``(B) further subdivide the amount with respect to each 
     subcommittee or program between controllable amounts and all 
     other amounts.

     Each such committee shall promptly report to its House the 
     subdivisions made by it pursuant to this paragraph.''.
       (b) Point of Order.--Section 302(c) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``such committee 
     makes the allocation or subdivisions required by'' and 
     inserting ``such committee makes the allocation or 
     subdivisions in accordance with''.
       (c) Alteration of Allocations.--Section 302(e) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Alteration of Allocations.--
       ``(1) Any alteration of allocations made under paragraph 
     (1) of subsection (b) proposed by the Committee on 
     Appropriations of either House shall be subject to approval 
     as required by such paragraph.
       ``(2) At any time after a committee reports the allocations 
     required to be made under subsection (b)(2), such committee 
     may report to its House an alteration of such allocations. 
     Any alteration of such allocations must be consistent with 
     any actions already taken by its House on legislation within 
     the committee's jurisdiction.''.

     SEC. ____3. AMENDMENTS TO APPROPRIATIONS BILL.

       Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by--
       (1) redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
       (2) inserting after subsection (f) the following:
       ``(g) Amendments to Appropriations Act Reducing 
     Allocations.--
       ``(1) Floor amendments.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, an amendment to an appropriations bill 
     shall be in order if--
       ``(A) such amendment reduces an amount of budget authority 
     provided in the bill and reduces the relevant subcommittee 
     allocation made pursuant to subsection (b)(1) and the 
     discretionary spending limits under section 601(a)(2) for the 
     fiscal year covered by the bill; or
       ``(B) such amendment reduces an amount of budget authority 
     provided in the bill and reduces the relevant subcommittee 
     allocation made pursuant to subsection (b)(1) and the 
     discretionary spending limits under section 601(a)(2) for the 
     fiscal year covered by the bill and the 4 succeeding fiscal 
     years.
       ``(2) Conference reports.--(A) It shall not be in order to 
     consider a conference report on an appropriations bill that 
     contains a provision reducing subcommittee allocations and 
     discretionary spending included in both the bill as passed by 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives if such provision 
     provides reductions in such allocations and spending that are 
     less than those provided in the bill as passed by the Senate 
     or the House of Representatives.
       ``(B) It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House 
     of Representatives to consider a conference report on an 
     appropriations bill that does not include a reduction in 
     subcommittee allocations and discretionary spending in 
     compliance with subparagraph (A) contained in the bill as 
     passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives.''.

     SEC. ____4. SECTION 602(b) ALLOCATIONS.

       Section 602(b)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     is amended to read as follows:
       (1) Suballocations by appropriations committees.--The 
     Committee on Appropriations of each House shall make 
     allocations under subsection (a)(1)(A) or (a)(2) in 
     accordance with section 302(b)(1).''.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President I wonder if the Senator from New Jersey 
will yield for just a moment?
  I was just wondering, does the Senator from Hawaii have any 
additional debate on my amendment? If I may just take 30 seconds, we 
will finish the debate on my amendment and we will proceed with the 
other amendment.
  I just want to say that we have been told many times we are going to 
have years of warning if there is any change in the strategic balance. 
So I do not think you lose anything, even in the worst-case scenario.
  And the other thing is I might say this saves $2.23 billion. If we 
were to take that $2.23 billion and use it to dismantle all those 
warheads in the Soviet Union, which they have asked us to do, we would 
be a lot safer.
  Now, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There does not appear to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
this amendment occur immediately after the first Bumpers amendment 
tomorrow.
  I do not think there is anything in between those two; is there, Mr. 
President?
  So I ask unanimous consent the vote on this one immediately follow 
the vote on the Milstar amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for 10 seconds?
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator being in 
order to ask for the yeas and nays? If not, without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the amendment that is before the Senate 
is the amendment that I described earlier today in my remarks on the 
floor.
  The intent of the amendment is to make it easier to cut discretionary 
spending and to change three provisions in the process to enable it to 
be easier to cut spending. Under the current procedure, if you are to 
cut a specific spending program, such as to cut Milstar or such as to 
cut a water project, or such as to cut anything, and you offer that 
amendment in the appropriations process and you get 53 votes, you do 
not actually cut spending. You need 60 votes to cut spending. You have 
simply eliminated the spending for that particular project, and that 
amount of money goes back to the subcommittee, which then can allocate 
it to some other spending under its overall discretionary budget cap.
  (Mr. BUMPERS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BRADLEY. So what I would do, first, in this amendment is to allow 
someone to stand on the floor during the appropriations process, offer 
an amendment to cut spending, to cut a specific spending program, and 
be required to get only 50 votes in order to not only eliminate or cut 
the particular program, but reduce spending by the same amount.
  It only takes 50 votes to raise taxes. I think it should only take 50 
votes to cut spending. The first part of this amendment assures that 
result. The second part of the amendment deals with the situation that 
has occurred from time to time where the Senate will cut a particular 
program by, say, $100 million and the House will cut that same program 
by, say, $50 million. And we will come back with no spending cut 
whatsoever in the program. Or we will come back with the overall 
spending in the subcommittee increased.
  In other words, you could have the Senate vote to cut a particular 
program by $100 million, and the House vote to cut that program by $50 
million in which case you would say the House and Senate both voted to 
cut spending by a minimum of $50 million because both of them agreed to 
cut spending in that program by $50 million. But the subcommittee 
reports back that the subcommittee has increased spending; not 
decreased but has increased.
  So the amendment that I offer says simply that a conference cannot 
report a spending item that is greater than the amount that was in 
either the House or the Senate.
  The third provision in this amendment is really a process provision. 
How do you achieve this? And the only way to achieve it--and I have 
tried to think if there were other ways to do so--but the only way to 
do that is to establish a process where the whole Congress determines 
what will be the appropriation subcommittee caps.
  So that the whole Senate, not just the Appropriations Committee, 
decides what shall be spent in the Transportation Subcommittee, or the 
Agriculture Subcommittee. As it is now within the overall appropriation 
discretionary budget cap, there can be allocations. That will be made 
only in the Appropriations Committee, not on the floor of the Senate. I 
would require them to be made on the floor of the Senate, that 
Congresswide resolution that would State spending levels by 
subcommittee across the Congress, and then to go to the normal 
appropriations process.
  For all three of these I have the purpose of making it easier for us 
to actually cut spending. We have given a lot of speeches about reduced 
spending. But somehow or another the spending does not go down as much 
as we would like. This would make it easier for any Senator to stand on 
the floor of the Senate during the consideration of an appropriations 
bill, not unlike the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, and offer an 
amendment. If he got 51 votes, the spending is cut. If he cut it by $50 
million and the House cut it by $100 million, you would have to at 
least cut spending in that appropriations by $50 million, and to do so 
by setting an overall subcommittee cap on spending at the subcommittee 
level of the Appropriations Committee, and doing it Senatewide.
  That is the amendment that I have offered.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bumpers). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the amendment by Mr. Bradley is a well-intentioned 
amendment. He has spoken to me previously about it. We discussed it 
later by telephone. I thank him for the courtesy in calling my 
attention to the amendment somewhat in advance of his offering it. But 
as well-intentioned as the amendment is, it would, if enacted, create 
total chaos in the annual appropriations process. Furthermore, if this 
amendment were enacted the American people would hear a great sucking 
sound. This is not Ross Perot talking. That will be the sound of the 
power of the purse being siphoned from the Congress to the White House.
  The amendment in section 2(b)(1) would require the enactment of a 
joint resolution on appropriations allocations. In other words, this 
amendment would require that the annual 602(b) allocations among 
appropriations subcommittees be enacted into law. In so doing, the 
amendment would require a Presidential signature, and this would enable 
the President to veto any joint resolution that he did not like. If he 
did not like a particular allocation then made to a particular 
subcommittee, then he could exercise his veto. In other words, after 
Congress has completed action on each year's budget resolution, which 
does not require a Presidential signature, and thereby has set the 
congressional budget priorities in place--after all that has been done 
and the Senate and the House has spent hours and hours in deliberating 
on--this amendment would thereafter require a joint resolution to be 
signed into law before any appropriations bill could be considered in 
the House or Senate.
  The amendment attempts to expedite consideration of the joint 
resolution in the Senate by limiting debate on it, and all amendments 
thereto and debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith to 
not more than 20 hours.
  Mr. President, I have just about had my bellyful of these fast-track 
agreements that we put into law. I think that the Senate did a very 
unwise thing last year in voting for fast track on GATT. I voted 
against fast track. I sense that we are going to get into somewhat of a 
habit of putting fast-track language in various and sundry 
controversial, comprehensive and difficult, and far-reaching 
legislative measures.
  This amendment would limit all of these things: The motions, 
debatable motions, amendments, and appeals to not more than 20 hours. 
But there is no mention of conferences on these joint resolutions; not 
in this one. There is no mention of conferences. What happens if the 
conferees cannot agree on the differences in subcommittee allocation? 
Everything would be put on hold. No appropriations bills could be taken 
up in either House until the joint resolution is enacted into law. Yet, 
there is nothing in the amendment, however, which would require 
conferences on these joint resolutions to be completed.
  So what do we do in the meantime? What happens if the conference 
cannot be completed? Do we shut down the Government? Probably not. What 
would probably occur would be the enactment of a governmentwide 
continuing resolution. This would be the likely outcome of this 
amendment--the return to Government by continuing resolution.
  This year in this particular session the Appropriations Committee in 
the Senate had before it all of the appropriations bills. They came 
over from the House early. And the two leaders have arranged for the 
consideration of these bills. They have helped to expedite action on 
the bills.
  If this amendment were to become law, we would not see that kind of 
deliberate, careful, prompt action on the appropriations bills that we 
are experiencing here in the Senate this year. In another scenario, let 
us assume that congressional action on the joint resolution goes 
quickly and smoothly--the joint resolution setting Appropriations 
Subcommittee allocations then goes to the President for his signature. 
But, the President does not like the allocations. He wants more money 
for his priorities and less for congressional priorities. One President 
may, for example, feel that the VA-HUD Subcommittee's allocation is too 
low to fund the space station. Another President might feel that the 
Defense Subcommittee's allocation was too low. In any case, for 
whatever reasons that suit him, any President under this amendment 
would have veto power over these annual subcommittee allocations of 
appropriations. Surely Senators are not willing to hand over such power 
to this President or to any President--any President, not just this 
President.

  The very impetus of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 
Act of 1974, which this amendment seeks to change, was to provide a way 
for congressional priorities to be set and followed through annual 
concurrent budget resolutions. President Nixon, at that time, was 
engaged in the practice of impounding appropriated funds that did not 
meet his priorities. Congress responded by enacting the Congressional 
Budget Act to provide for the necessary expertise and tools to set 
annual congressional budgetary priorities.
  During the Reagan years, the debate over annual appropriations bills 
was not over the level of appropriations spending, but over executive 
versus congressional spending priorities. One of the few successful 
overrides of a Reagan veto was on the fiscal year 1982 supplemental 
appropriations bill. That bill appropriated less--less--than President 
Reagan requested, but did not meet his priorities. So he vetoed the 
bill and, as I said, the Senate overrode his veto by a vote of 60 to 
30.
  Mr. President, this amendment is also misguided if its purpose is to 
reduce the deficit. With all due respect to the Senator from New 
Jersey, and I have great respect for Mr. Bradley, this is not the way 
to go about considering budget cuts. The time for that debate is in 
connection with the annual budget resolutions. I voted against the 
amendment by Senators Exon and Grassley to this year's budget 
resolution because I felt that it cut too deeply into discretionary 
appropriations over the next 5 years. Despite my opposition, the Exon-
Grassley amendment was adopted by the Senate. In conference, the Exon-
Grassley cuts were compromised with the House. But, the result was a 
cut in outlays totaling $13 billion over the next 5 fiscal years below 
what was agreed to last summer in OBRA 93.
  So I say to all Senators you need not worry about whether you have 
cut discretionary spending. I am here to tell you that you have cut 
discretionary spending. I told you that when we passed the budget 
resolution. You have cut discretionary spending. You set a level above 
which the Appropriations Committee will not go. You have frozen 
discretionary spending. So you have cut. You can go back home now after 
this resolution is adopted, and you can tell your folks and you can 
look them in the eye, and look in a mirror and look yourself in the eye 
and say: ``Oh boy, we cut discretionary spending. We have done it.'' 
Dizzy Dean says, ``You can brag if you've done it.'' You can brag. You 
have done it. You have cut.
  So where we have not cut, as Senator Bradley also says, is in 
entitlements and mandatory spending.
  As this chart shows, the chart to my left, as this chart shows 
discretionary spending totaled $543.4 billion in fiscal year 1994. For 
fiscal year 1995 it goes down, down, Newton's law of gravitation. He 
did not create the law. He discovered the law of gravitation. And this 
follows Newton's law of gravitation. It goes down. For fiscal year 
1995, it goes down to $540.6 billion. Over the 6-year period 1994 to 
1999, we are capped by the budget resolution to levels that will allow 
only $6 billion above 1994 to spend over the entire 6 years, $6 billion 
over all those years. We are allowed to spend and appropriate in the 
Appropriations Committees and in the two Houses with respect to 
appropriations we are allowed only $6 billion above 1994. By contrast 
mandatory spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal 
retirement and other programs, veterans' pensions, veterans' 
compensation, child nutrition, food stamps, which are all on automatic 
pilot, will grow by a total of $824 billion above what would be spent 
if we froze those programs over the next 6 years. So we have frozen 
discretionary spending to a level of $6 billion over the next 6 years, 
but we have not frozen mandatory entitlement spending over the next 6 
years. It grows by $824 billion.
  Finally, I will briefly mention one other area of Federal spending 
that escapes annual scrutiny and by all accounts is growing without any 
limitations. That is the area of tax expenditures. Senator Bradley 
recognized that, and he would take action to do something about it.
  The General Accounting Office issued a report in June 1994 entitled 
``Tax Policy--Tax Expenditures Deserve More Scrutiny.'' In that report, 
on page 34, GAO estimates that aggregate tax expenditures for 1993 were 
about $402 billion, or 31 percent as large as the Federal Government's 
total direct outlays for both mandatory and discretionary spending.
  On page 3 of the report GAO has this to say:

       Tax expenditures can be a valid means for achieving certain 
     federal objectives. However, studies by GAO and others have 
     raised concerns about the effectiveness, efficiency, or 
     equity of some tax expenditures. Substantial revenues are 
     forgone through tax expenditures but they do not overtly 
     compete in the annual budget process, and most are not 
     subject to reauthorization. As a result, policymakers have 
     few opportunities to make explicit comparisons or trade-offs 
     between tax expenditures and federal spending programs. The 
     growing revenues forgone through tax expenditures reduce the 
     resources available to fund other programs or reduce the 
     deficit and force tax rates to be higher to obtain a given 
     amount of revenue.

  Perhaps the expertise of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey in 
matters of tax expenditures and mandatory spending would prove more 
fruitful in improving the congressional process as it relates to 
controlling these areas of the budget.
  As for the pending amendment, I urge all Senators to join in 
rejecting the amendment.
  The Senate has acted. The House has acted. The budget resolution was 
enacted. We all worked hard, and we took difficult action when we 
reached our decisions in connection with that resolution. We made cuts 
in discretionary spending. We applied a freeze.
  Now, if we come along and with any amendment that cuts an 
appropriation we also lower the caps, then we have put more of the 
squeeze upon the Appropriations Committees so that we will be operating 
below a freeze rather than having a tiny $6 billion, tiny in comparison 
to the $824 billion by which mandatory entitlement spending will 
increase over the next 6 years. We will have tightened the vise around 
the appropriations process with respect to discretionary 
appropriations.
  Senators ought to stop, look, and listen before contemplating making 
deeper cuts in discretionary spending.
  We have cut discretionary spending off the bone for the last dozen 
years prior to the Clinton administration. So old Mother Hubbard's 
cupboard is pretty bare. And we are talking about your parks. We are 
talking about your public lands in the West. We are talking about your 
Indian programs. We are talking about bridges, highways, education, 
environmental cleanup, conservation, all of the items in the 
discretionary budget that touch the lives of every man, woman, boy, and 
girl in this country every day.
  So I hope that Senators will join in rejecting the amendment, I say 
with respect to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
  I again thank him for the courtesy which he always accords me in 
letting me know in advance when he contemplates offering an amendment.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I will make only a few points in response 
to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
  I think he is absolutely right on target when he points to the real 
villains of spending being exploding entitlements, the largest of which 
and the fastest growing of which is health care; and tax expenditures, 
which have exploded even faster in the last 5 years than the 
entitlement programs themselves.
  I hope that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would join 
with me, when we begin to deal with the budget resolution next year, to 
try to change the way we treat tax expenditures.
  As you know, under the current rules, if I want a special program and 
I can get it by simply saying if somebody does this, we will tax them 
less, that is not a spending program. But if I go to the Appropriations 
Committee and appropriate money to do the same thing, that is called a 
spending program.
  I believe that spending, whether it is through the Tax Code or 
spending, whether it is through the appropriations process, should be 
treated the same way. And the only way that we will do that is by 
amending the budget process, because now if you eliminate a special 
loophole, it is called increasing taxes. In effect, it is eliminating 
spending that we do through the Tax Code.
  So I agree very much with what the distinguished chairman said about 
the exploding entitlements--we need to control those entitlements--as 
well as his strong statement about the exploding tax expenditure side.
  With those agreements, I would also say that I do think we need to 
get control, even though we have done a good job in reducing some 
discretionary spending, I would make it much tighter and I would make 
it much easier for any Senator to come to the floor and offer an 
amendment to reduce spending.
  Every appropriations bill is filled with literally hundreds and 
hundreds of items that, if given the full light of day, might not be 
supported by the entire Senate. Unfortunately, Members do not come to 
the floor to raise questions about particular spending items in 
discretionary spending because they, by and large, know that if they 
succeed and get 53 votes, they are not going to actually reduce 
spending by that amount and the amount of money that they have cut will 
simply go back to the Appropriations Committee to reallocate.
  And so I would simply want to treat spending cuts the same way we 
treat tax increase. If you can raise taxes with 50 votes, you ought to 
be able to cut spending with 50 votes, as well.
  I would have only one final comment in response to what the 
distinguished chairman said, and that is whether a President would veto 
a resolution that placed caps on subcommittees. I think that, under the 
amendment, it is possible for a President to do that, just as it would 
be possible for a President to veto a continuing resolution or possible 
for a President to veto an appropriations bill. I think that that is 
highly unlikely that that would happen, however.
  So, on balance, I would argue that we should err on the side of 
putting tighter restrictions on spending and that is a process to do 
that, and that is really what was behind my amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BRADLEY. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have listened to this debate with great 
care, and would like to join my chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee in commending the Senator from New Jersey for his amendment. 
His intent and purpose has great merit.
  But, I believe the proper place for debate of this importance would 
be at the time of the annual budget resolution. So, that is my only 
comment.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman for his observation.
  I, too, would agree that the best place for this kind of debate to 
occur would be on a budget resolution, because it deals with an 
examination of the budget and appropriations.
  But the only reason that I raised it at this time is this is the last 
appropriations bill. In order for my amendment to prevail, since it is 
a not a germane amendment, it would require 60 votes. But that is the 
same amount of votes that would be required for any spending cut on an 
appropriations bill to prevail.
  So, I simply wanted to raise it on an appropriations bill at this 
time to make that point and to urge that, when we get to the budget 
resolution next year, other Senators will have at least been alerted to 
this and will have the opportunity to study it over the coming months 
and, hopefully, join in the effort to reduce spending by changing some 
of the appropriations process.
  With that said, Mr. President, I would be prepared to withdraw the 
amendment and look forward to next year's budget resolution when this 
could very well be an amendment. And I hope I would be walking shoulder 
to shoulder with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to make 
spending through the Tax Code also count as spending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator has a right to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2490) was withdrawn.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for 
withdrawing the amendment. I hope that he will have the opportunity and 
will take the opportunity between now and the time we take up the 
budget resolution to think carefully about his proposal, and perhaps 
modify it to some extent. But, in any event, that would be the proper 
place for the debate.
  I again thank him.
  Mr. President, I have a few remarks on another matter that I would 
like to make.

                          ____________________