[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 21, 1994]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I arrived in the U.S. Senate over 10 years 
ago. Since that time, with each passing election and each passing year 
and with the increase in gridlock in Congress, I have become, as I 
think some of my colleagues have, more and more convinced that the 
system of financing political campaigns in this country is doing the 
U.S. Congress--and, more importantly, the politics of our Nation--an 
enormous disservice.
  It was because of my early perceptions about campaign finance that 
when I first ran for the U.S. Senate, I made a decision that I would 
personally not accept any PAC money. Indeed, we were able to create the 
first PAC-free Senate race in the history of the United States. As a 
consequence of our mutual efforts, no candidate received PAC funds in 
the race for the seat I now hold. We proved that you can run for the 
U.S. Senate without PAC money. In addition, I think we proved to the 
American people that when you do not have PAC money--PAC's, for those 
who do not follow these debates, are political action committees, which 
are organizations formed by special interest groups who bundle money 
into large amounts and distribute it to candidates--we proved in my 
Senate race in 1984 that campaigns can be run without the infusion and 
influence of special-interest money.
  Pick up any newspaper in America today and you can read about the 
disrepute of this institution. I think anybody who understands what is 
happening in America must hear the roar of the oncoming tidal wave of 
dissatisfaction that will hit the Congress if we do not respond to the 
felt need of the citizens of this country to separate their public 
servants from money.
  Money is polluting the entire trust--whatever is left of it--of the 
American people for the political process. All you have to do is look 
at what has happened to the health care debate in this country and you 
have a story of money, of millions of dollars from one interest or 
another, infecting and disassembling an issue of vital importance. It 
is OK, I suppose, if all that cash goes only into public advertising 
and expression. After all, the first amendment is very clear about the 
rights of people to express their views. But this money should not be 
inserted directly into campaign after campaign and into the campaign 
coffers of candidate after candidate after candidate.
  It does not take a student of political science or anybody who has 
spent a long time around the political process to understand that 
people who do not think that you are supporting their point of view are 
not going to contribute to you. Somebody who votes against the 
insurance industry does not get money from the insurance industry. 
Somebody who votes against banking does not get money from the banking 
industry. Somebody who votes for gun control does not get money from 
the National Rifle Association. And so it goes down a long list of all 
of the groups that give money. And someone who gets money from the 
insurance industry is likely to vote for the insurance industry. And 
Someone who gets money from the NRA is likely to vote against gun 
control.
  Because of the structure of advertising in America, my colleagues and 
I, and all of us in this process, have become nothing more than bill 
collectors for the broadcasters. We go out and raise huge sums of 
money, then behave as conduits, passing that money from those special 
interests to broadcasters. In the process, a certain amount of 
independence is lost. And in the process, a certain amount of control 
is gained.
  Americans are not well served by this, Mr. President, and I think 
everybody in this institution understands it. Americans are not well 
served by it for the amount of money that is wasted and batted around. 
They are not well served by it for the relationships that are created 
as a consequence of it. And they are not well served by it because it 
takes away from the capacity of Congressmen and Senators to spend time 
with their constituents and on the issues, instead forcing politicians 
to travel the country with suitcases prepared to be filled with checks 
from whatever special interest they can cull from somewhere in the 
Nation.
  Mr. President, as a first-time candidate for the U.S. Senate, I 
became convinced that spending limits are an essential ingredient of 
trying to stop the incredible spiraling, escalating costs of campaigns. 
Go back 5 years, go back 10 years, go back 20 years, and there is a 
remarkable straight-line increase in the cost of campaigning in the 
United States, and today almost 90 percent or more of that money goes 
directly to buy television and broadcast time.
  More and more campaigns do less and less people-oriented activities. 
Fewer and fewer campaigns can afford even the paraphernalia of 
campaigns--leaflets, buttons and so forth. Most campaigns are forced 
into a battle of retaliation--the point, counterpoint of television 
advertising. It has gotten to the point now where one ad goes out and 
within 24 hours the response ad is on, and then the counter-response, 
and candidates are driven to go out to find more and more money in 
order to respond to this escalating process. It is the new arms race, 
if you will; it is the money race.
  I think that colleagues of good conscience and good intent around 
here know that when they sit in private and they talk about this, there 
is a universality of condemnation and lamentation about it, a 
universality of understanding about these dangers to the political 
system in this country.
  We are at this moment, after a long period of effort, staring at a 
window of opportunity. When I came here, a campaign finance reform bill 
was the first piece of legislation that I introduced, and each year I 
have introduced that legislation in an effort to try to restore 
people's sense of connection to the American political process. I have 
by no means been alone. Senator Mitchell also introduced legislation a 
long time ago, as has Senator Boren. Senator Biden, Senator Simon, and 
Senator Bradley have also joined in this effort to try to change the 
political process. But until now we have had no ultimate success.

  In the 102d Congress, we did manage to pass a comprehensive campaign 
finance reform bill, but it was vetoed by President Bush. Now, that 
vote itself, in all candor, said a certain amount about the hypocrisy 
which has governed this issue, because many Members voted for that bill 
knowing President Bush was going to give them cover since he was going 
to veto it and prevent real change from taking place.
  Now that there is a President of the United States who is prepared to 
sign a campaign finance reform bill into law, some of those ``yes'' 
votes have turned into either ``noes'' or ``maybes,'' in an effort to 
stall or avoid what the public so clearly demands and what this 
institution desperately needs.
  Despite these so-called changes of heart, Mr. President, we passed a 
campaign finance bill again in this session. Not a perfect bill--no 
piece of legislation is perfect--but a good campaign finance reform 
bill. And we know that if President Clinton gets this bill he will sign 
it into law. But month after month after month has gone by without any 
action on this legislation.
  We are now at the single most critical moment of campaign finance 
reform in history. That is not an exaggeration. This is the first time 
we could put limits in place, we could lower the influence of PAC's to 
the lowest level in history. We could establish new accountability for 
campaign fundraising. We could increase the democracy of this country 
by reducing the size of the amounts of donations. We would instill an 
incentive for people to be able to go out and raise money in small 
amounts within their own State, and place an incentive for candidates 
to raise most of their money in their home State rather running around 
the country looking for cash.
  We passed this bill last year. One year ago. One year ago we passed 
this bill, and for this entire year that bill has been the prisoner of 
resistance on the House side. It is now meeting the same kind of 
gridlock response here in the Senate, the kind that we consistently 
find on almost everything we try to do in this body these days.
  I would like to know how many Americans are even aware that the 
Senate is engaged in a filibuster where we have to go through effort 
after effort just to have a cloture vote in order to get to conference 
and be able to talk about the differences between the House and Senate 
on this bill.
  Mr. President, the Republicans are preventing us from even being able 
to work the legislative process to try to get to a compromise. Does 
America understand the willful arrogance which is being applied to 
stall the business of this institution, to time and time again prevent 
the majority from engaging in legislative activity, and to require 60 
votes for almost every legislative step--60 votes every time.
  The current filibuster spree is an embarrassing effort simply to chew 
up days because Republicans know that these are the waning days of the 
legislative session. So if we have to do a filibuster with a cloture 
vote, we automatically, under the rules, go 2 days in between each vote 
and all of a sudden, before you even get to conference, one entire week 
is gone. So those who filibuster know that they have killed precious 
time, and will continue to delay in the ensuing weeks, because they 
hope that the Congress will do nothing. Then they will go back to their 
districts and they will say that the Democrats had the majority in the 
Congress but were unable to accomplish anything. And the American 
people, who do not understand the power that Republicans' have to 
require 60 votes, who do not understand what it means to have a cloture 
motion, who do not understand the process of delay, will say, oh, yeah, 
that is right; Democrats ought to be able to make things happen.
  Mr. President, I think we have to come to this floor day after day 
after day and tell this story to Americans, and tell them that most of 
us are prepared to vote on campaign finance reform now. The Republicans 
simply are not letting us.
  Now, Mr. President, that is, as I said, only one facet of resistance 
here. There are some in the House who continue to believe that PAC 
money is essential, a sine qua non presence in politics. And they are 
unwilling to restrain or lower the amount of PAC money that is being 
currently raised to support campaigns.
  I believe the Congress of the United States desperately needs to show 
the American people that we understand their concern about gridlock and 
about money. We need enactment of this bill on campaign finance reform. 
The only step remaining between the signing of this bill by the 
President and its passage here is the completion of the conference. But 
we cannot even get to the conference without jumping through 
legislative hoops placed in our path by Republicans. We are closer to 
placing in law a campaign finance reform than we have ever been, but we 
face a pattern of resistance that cannot be justified and can barely be 
stopped.
  Now, Mr. President, the delay and resistance that I have talked about 
with respect to some in the House of Representatives has been commented 
on in the Washington Post recently, and I quote from it. They observed 
in July:

       Many Democrats in the House, including some in the 
     leadership, seem eager to find a way to kill campaign finance 
     reform in a way that would allow them to heap blame for its 
     defeat on the Republicans in the Senate. The sticking point 
     right now is whether to toughen the limits on how much a 
     political action committee can contribute to candidates. The 
     House Members want to keep the current high limit of $10,000 
     per election cycle. A group of reform-minded Republicans in 
     the Senate, whose support is crucial to get the bill past a 
     filibuster, want to ban PAC's altogether. But they appear 
     ready to settle on a compromise that would cut the PAC limit 
     perhaps to $5,000.

  The Post went on to say that:

       Many Democrats in the House would like Senators Mitchell 
     and Boren to cooperate by agreeing to move on a bill that 
     would do nothing about the PAC limit, and such a bill would 
     surely lose. But then the House could pass it and blame the 
     Senate for its death. To their credit, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. 
     Boren are refusing to play their assigned roles in this 
     charade.

  Indeed, Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Mitchell and Senator 
Boren for pressing the notion that it would be a cynical ploy, indeed, 
if all we did was bring a bill back from the House that did not 
compromise on this issue and that did not present to our colleagues in 
the Senate a reasonable effort to try to pass campaign finance reform.
  I agree with the Washington Post that our colleagues in the House 
need to stand firm, and we need to stand firm in the Senate. I also 
agree that we need to be reasonable about the notion of reform and 
about compromise. The New York Times similarly analyzed the problem 
saying that the House is refusing to cut their bill's generous limits 
on the amount of money a member may accept from a single political 
action committee--$5,000 in a primary to another $5,000 in the general 
election--and the Times called the House position ``a cynical device 
aimed at killing reform.''
  Mr. President, I today join with other colleagues in the Senate in 
calling on our friends in the House not to use this method but, rather, 
to send to the Senate a genuine compromise that offers us an 
opportunity to try to gain, once and for all, a true reform of the 
campaign finance structure of our country.
  I just want to share a couple of observations with colleagues about 
what has happened with respect to money in politics in the last years.
  The Federal Election Commission shows that in the 1992 races, 
candidates for the Senate received an average of over $1.5 million in 
big money and PAC contributions, which together dwarfed the less than 
$650,000 that candidates received on average in small contributions of 
$100 or less. Democrats relied on big money just as much as the 
Republicans, and there was no clear partisan difference. By contrast, 
there was an enormous difference between incumbents and challengers.
  Senate incumbents raised twice as much as challengers in large 
private contributions, and PAC's chose to give to incumbents over 
challengers by a ratio of more than 3 to 1.
  Mr. President, I say respectfully that is one of the bedrock reasons 
why citizens all across this country are coming to distrust Washington, 
distrust incumbents, believe that term limits are the solution, when in 
fact the real solution is campaign finance reform. As long as they see 
a system structured that is guaranteed to provide incumbents a 3-to-1 
advantage in fundraising, they will continue on their drive to change 
the system in ways that many people believe is an overreaction, is 
uncalled for, and is even dangerous.
  Those who claim that spending limits actually protect incumbents, not 
challengers, are simply not following the facts. The fact is that the 
current system already favors incumbents. If we impose spending limits 
which hold down the total amount that can be raised, we are clearly 
limiting the reliance of both incumbents and challengers on big money. 
Without the kind of reforms that are contained in the campaign finance 
bill that we passed, incumbents will outspend challengers on a 
continued basis by at least a 2-to-1 margin. With reform, spending 
levels will be more equal.
  We all know that under the 17th amendment of the Constitution, passed 
in 1913, the U.S. Senate specifically was supposed to have become a 
representative body. But the huge sums that it takes to get elected 
separate us from our constituents. I would respectfully submit that 
money stands as an impediment to a true connection to our constituents, 
and it certainly has the appearance--an appearance as destructive as 
any force in American politics --of standing between us and the true 
concerns of the voters who elected us.
  All you have to do is analyze the pattern of giving this year from 
health PACs, from hospitals, from anybody who has anything to do with 
the health industry. Take a look at committees with purview on the 
health debate--the Ways and Means Committee, the Finance Committee, 
Health and Human Services Committee--and you can directly see a pattern 
of contributions to the people on those committees. And I respectfully 
submit that you may even find a very clear pattern of what kinds of 
positions or advocacy was made with respect to those series of 
contributions.
  As was said by former Senator Paul Laxalt, a Republican from Nevada 
and a close, close friend of President Reagan who was chair of Reagan's 
campaigns:

       There is far too much emphasis on money and far too much 
     time spent collecting it. It is the most corrupting thing I 
     see on the congressional scene.

  That was spoken by an individual I think most people here know was 
careful and judicious in his comments and rare to make such a dramatic 
condemnation of a political process. His feelings are obviously shared 
by many people in the country.
  The Orlando Sentinel recently editorialized saying it is wrong to 
allow huge contributions from corporations and individuals to get 
around the legal limits. The San Francisco Chronicle last month 
described the campaign finance process in terms that captured one of 
the reasons that the public is really so angry with the Congress. The 
Chronicle wrote:

       Because candidates spend more time in campaigns dialing for 
     dollars than crafting policy, once in office they too often 
     spend this time catering to the special interests. This year, 
     candidates once again speak piously for the need for campaign 
     finance reform while stretching out their palms more than 
     ever before.

  Mr. President, there is a perception out there about the current 
system that is just extraordinarily negative and damaging to each and 
every one of us. And we should make no mistake about the public's 
attitude. The American people are mad as hell, and they have reached a 
point where, like the movie, they feel that the only thing they can do 
is shout and say, ``I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it 
anymore.'' And the way they are not going to take it anymore is to pass 
some Draconian overreaching measure to limit good experience from 
returning here, to turn over Government to staffs, to create a 
permanent power of bureaucracy, to make more strong the Executive of 
this country by passing limits on the time that good public servants 
can serve.
  The voters may not know in detail about how political committees 
raise money or how we spend their funds, how soft money works, how 
lobbyists bundle large campaign checks. But the voters absolutely know 
that the current system stinks. They know that it has failed them, and 
they are insisting on change.
  So I submit to my colleagues this is the time. These are the last 
days of Congress. This bill passed this body a year ago. If we do not 
pass campaign finance reform this year, there are many who question 
whether, with the potential makeup of both the House and the Senate, it 
can be done in the future.
  That, Mr. President, is one of the reasons why some are playing so 
hard for delay. This is indeed another example of a cynical and 
calculated approach for gridlock. And those who are creating the 
gridlock will be the first to go back to their districts and blame it 
on others who are trying to bring this matter to a vote.
  The truth is--and I think more Members each year are coming to the 
conclusion--that Congress itself is viewed by America as the prisoner 
of special interests. We all understand everything is a special 
interest. If three kids walk in here and they have a petition with a 
picture to give you, they are a special interest. Veterans are a 
special interest. Senior citizens are a special interest. Every 
legitimate interest is a special interest. I acknowledge that. But what 
has happened is clearly some have proven their ability to be able to 
affect the political process by virtue of money, not by virtue of a 
compelling idea, not by virtue of a coalition, not by virtue of a 
consensus. They do not even allow for a bipartisan process to work its 
will. They by guile employ the willingness and the rules of this 
process to prevent anything from happening.
  This is one of those changes that could go as far as anything we 
could do here to begin the process of restoring credibility between 
ourselves and the people that we represent. I believe that if we do not 
do it, Mr. President, we would truly be cheating the American people.
  I believe that many people were attracted to Ross Perot's campaign 
not only because he promised change but because he appeared beholden to 
no one. They liked the idea that this fellow could write his own check 
and not go to Washington held by any interests. They may have been 
wrong about Perot, but the concept remains. Even if you do not believe 
it, even if you do not accept that PACs somehow change the way things 
work here, or unfairly and overly impact policy, even if you do not 
accept that, surely, no one who is politically astute--and everybody 
here is--is going to avoid acknowledging that that perception is out 
there and that we ought to respond to the perception.
  If it strengthens our democracy and the political process, then I 
think it is good for this country. The fact is that it is entirely 
feasible for all of us to run much better grassroots campaigns, to 
appeal more to the democratic instincts of this country, by going out 
to people and asking for small contributions. This is preferable to 
relying on the extraordinary large sums of money that make up the 
American political process today.
  Mr. President, we need to endorse a basic principle of a 
representative democracy here in the United States--as we struggle to 
do it in Haiti and in other countries around the world--and that basic 
principle is that a race for the U.S. legislature should not be decided 
on the basis of how much money you can spend. It must be decided on the 
quality of somebody's public service, on the quality of the 
contributions they have made and will make, on the promise of their 
campaign, on the ideas they carry and the message and the agenda they 
suggest for the Nation--not on the amount of bankroll they can collect 
from people who want to do business in Washington.
  I commend to my colleagues an article that just appeared by Kevin 
Philips called ``Fat City,'' which tells it pretty straight about how 
people feel about Washington and money. I respectfully submit to my 
colleagues that now is a golden moment for the U.S. Senate to respond 
to the cynicism, to respond to a fundamental need, and to respond to 
our own consciences about what is good for this Nation. And I hope that 
if the House of Representatives comes to a compromise, we will respect 
the notion of compromise and respect the need to come together without 
a perfect piece of legislation for anybody, but rather one which will 
act for the better good of all of us in this institution and in this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Conrad). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, as my colleagues will remember, prior to 
the recess, Republicans tried to offer a series of amendments to the 
then-pending crime bill conference report. In order to do that, we 
would have had to have sustained a point of order. We would have had to 
have gotten 41 votes, and we fell short of that number.
  Since that time, there has been great frustration on my side of the 
aisle that we did not get an opportunity to vote on those amendments.
  I remind my colleagues that we had 10 amendments. Four of them had to 
do with what we believed was pork barrel spending in the crime bill. 
Basically, these amendments would knock out of the President's crime 
bill $5 billion of social spending. The amendment that I will in a 
moment send to the desk simply goes back retroactively in a new bill 
and overturns funding for those four provisions, saving in the process 
$5 billion.
  The next amendment has to do with prison grants. One of our 
frustrations about the crime bill was that there was no guarantee that 
the funds provided for prison construction would actually go to build 
conventional prisons. As we all are aware, the language in the bill was 
somewhat fuzzy, and it allowed the money to be used for alternatives to 
prison. It was uncertainty about this language that produced great 
consternation on my side of the aisle.
  We then had five amendments that proposed to insert get-tough 
provisions in the crime bill: 10 years in prison without parole for 
possessing a firearm during the commission of a violent crime or drug 
trafficking; 20 years for discharging the firearm; life imprisonment 
for killing someone; or the death penalty in aggravated cases.

  We had a provision having to do with drug trafficking involving 
minors; 10 years in prison without parole for selling drugs to a minor 
or using a minor in a drug conspiracy; life imprisonment without parole 
on a second offense.
  We had a provision that we wanted to offer that guaranteed that at 
the time of sentencing an illegal alien the judge could order that 
after they have served their sentence, they would be deported, rather 
than letting them out of prison and forcing the INS to go find them and 
begin deportation proceedings.
  Finally, and probably the worst provision of the crime bill in my 
opinion, a delicate compromise that had been worked out here in the 
Senate was overturned, and whereas current law has mandatory minimum 
sentencing for drug felons, the bill that actually became law would 
overturn mandatory minimum sentencing for drug felons. It would allow 
people with criminal records who are convicted of selling drugs in a 
junior high school not to be subject to mandatory minimum sentencing 
and actually give judges discretion in sentencing those offenders.
  The first conference report, which was rejected by the House, would 
have overturned mandatory minimum sentencing retroactively and could 
have let as many as 10,000 drug felons out of prison. Fortunately, that 
provision was overturned by the House and did not become the law of the 
land.
  But what did become the law of the land was a provision that gives 
judges discretion and produces a situation where, even with people who 
had criminal records, even with people who were selling drugs to 
minors, we will not have a mandatory minimum sentence that they have to 
serve in Federal prison.
  So given our inability at the end of the August session to offer 
these amendments, I had decided, along with many of my colleagues, when 
the first bill came along that was amendable, that we would offer these 
amendments and at least give the Senate an opportunity to state its 
position on them.

  We have before us an appropriations conference report, but it is a 
conference report, for our purposes, fortunately, that is full of 
legislative language. It is full of House language legislating on an 
appropriation bill and so this amendment is germane, in my opinion. And 
I believe that the Chair will rule that it is germane based on 
provisions in the conference report which relate to crime, to 
punishment, to law enforcement, to exactly the kind of provisions that 
we are proposing here.
  Certainly, based on precedent, the Parliamentarian, in my opinion, 
will not rule the amendment out of order. The Parliamentarian will, in 
all probability, rule that there is a question about it and that would 
then be put to the body.
  In any case, I have previously agreed with the majority leader to 
give him an opportunity to look at the amendment and give him an 
opportunity to decide how he wants to deal with it after I send the 
amendment to the desk, I will allow the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee to be recognized to suggest the absence of a quorum to 
give the majority leader an opportunity to decide how he wants to deal 
with this.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague.
  The Senator was kind enough to explain to me his agreement with the 
majority leader. I do not know whether he is going to conclude that we 
would proceed tonight. My guess is, as the Senator has suggested, that 
we will probably proceed tomorrow.
  But I would say to my friend from Texas, I am delighted, whatever the 
appropriate time, to debate these issues with my friend and point out 
to him why I believe the crime bill covers either better or more 
thoroughly the very things the Senator is offering his amendment about. 
But I assume that will come after the decision is made by the leaders 
as to when we will vote on these issues, is that correct?
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me say, reclaiming my time, that is correct.
  The only reason that I went through the amendment was to put 
everybody on notice that, after the majority leader decides when he 
wants to begin the debate on it or decides how he wants to handle it, 
he will notify all of us and we can be here.
  The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I have 
debated these issues on many occasions.
  Mr. BIDEN. We have.
  Mr. GRAMM. I always enjoy debating him on these issues and I am sure 
I will have an opportunity to soon do it again.
  But my sole purpose here was to just let people know what is 
contained in the amendment, to put people on notice, because I know 
Senators will want to be here to debate it.
  So, with the previous agreement that we will have the distinguished 
chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee seek the floor, that I 
will stand down and allow him to be recognized, and that he will 
suggest the absence of a quorum so we can decide how to proceed, I send 
the amendment to the desk.


      amendment in disagreement to the senate amendment numbered 3

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold for one moment so 
the clerk can report the first amendment in disagreement which the 
Senator seeks to amend.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 3 to the aforesaid bill, 
     and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed in said amendment, insert: 
     ``, of which $1,500,000 shall be used to provide additional 
     support to title I (chapter I) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) and $910,000 
     shall be available for the National Learning Center, Options 
     School ($750,000) and Model Early Learning Center 
     ($160,000),''.


   Amendment No. 2585 to the Amendment in Disagreement to the Senate 
                          Amendment Numbered 3

 (Purpose: To strengthen the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
 Act of 1994 by reducing the number of social programs and increasing 
                  the penalties for criminal activity)

  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank you for your kindness in putting us 
in the procedural place where I might offer the amendment.
  I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek consent to have the 
reading of the amendment dispensed with?
  Mr. KOHL. Yes.
  Without objection, the clerk will report it by number.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2585, to the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
     No. 3.

  The text of the amendment is located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.''
  Mr. KOHL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________