[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 139 (Thursday, September 29, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
   SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT, 1994--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The Senate continued with consideration of the amendments in 
disagreement to the conference report.


                Amendment No. 2597 to Amendment No. 2596

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico offered an 
amendment which was Joint Committee on Organization of the Congress 
legislation. It is S. 1824.
  Mr. President, I am not opposed to this piece of legislation. There 
are an item or two in it that I have agreed not to support.
  I favor the 2-year budget very much, but that will not pass. The 2-
year authorization is in the bill. So let me kind of go through a 
little history of what happens.
  Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from New 
Mexico because this amendment is not the bill which was reported by the 
Rules Committee.
  When the Senate Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress met on November 10, 1993, they unanimously adopted the 
recommendations of the chairman and vice chairman, Senators Boren and 
Domenici. Those recommendations formed the basis of S. 1824, as it was 
introduced in February 1994.
  The recommendations contained in S. 1824 called for, among other 
things: A 2-year congressional budget process, including biennial 
appropriations; stricter committee assignment limitations; a 2-hour 
limit on the motion to proceed to legislation; the elimination of all 
joint committees; limitations on the number of Senate subcommittees; 
reductions in the number of legislative branch staff; the abolition of 
standing committees if at the start of a Congress they fall below half 
their previous membership; and the periodic reauthorization of the 
legislative support agencies.
  However, when the Senate Members met, many Members made clear that 
they did not support all of the recommendations. As a member of that 
joint committee, along with Senator Stevens, I recall that several 
Senators made known their reservations about some of these 
recommendations.
  At the outset of the Rules Committee's consideration of S. 1824, I 
said: ``Although the Senate members of the Joint Committee voted 
unanimously to report the recommendation contained in S. 1824, no one 
should be misled. All the provisions of the bill do not enjoy unanimous 
support.''
  It was with that knowledge that several of the provisions of S. 1824 
did not enjoy unanimous support, that the Rules Committee began its 
consideration of the bill in February 1994.
  The Rules Committee held a comprehensive series of hearings to 
consider this legislation. In fact, the Rules Committee held five 
separate hearings on every aspect of this legislation. The sponsors of 
S. 1824 appeared before the committee on February 24, 1994.
  And in four subsequent hearings, on March 10 and 17, April 28, and 
May 5, the committee received testimony from other Senators, 
congressional experts, the leaders of several legislative support 
agencies, and the former director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, and now Chief of Staff for President Clinton, Leon Panetta.
  The committee hearings on this issue of legislative reorganization 
built upon the hearing record of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress. We had the benefit of all the hearings of the 
Joint Committee, and then we built upon those in our hearings. Many of 
the witnesses who appeared before the joint committee were witnesses at 
the Rules Committee hearings. These witnesses testified on issues 
ranging from Senate committees and floor procedures to biennial 
budgeting to oversight of the legislative support agencies.
  As I stated, we heard from the former Director of OMB, Leon Panetta. 
We also heard from James Blum, the Deputy Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  The committee heard testimony on those portions of S. 1824 dealing 
with the joint committees and the legislative support agencies, 
including the Library of Congress. Several Senators presented testimony 
on the importance of retaining the joint committees.
  The committee heard testimony from the senior Senator from Rhode 
Island, the Senator from New York, and the senior Senator from 
Maryland. These Senators all gave convincing testimony on the role that 
the joint committees play and the need and importance for their 
retention.
  Another important factor that was considered in retaining the joint 
committees is that membership on the Joint Committee on Tax, the Joint 
Committee on the Library, and the Joint Committee on Printing is taken 
from existing standing committees. In fact, only the Joint Economic 
Committee is considered a separate standing committee with membership 
on that committee counting toward a Member's committee assignments. 
Membership on the Joint Committees on Tax, the Library, or Printing do 
not count against the limits on committee assignments.
  The heads of the legislative support agencies stated their views on 
provisions that directly affected their organizations, such as the 
periodic reauthorization of the support agencies, preparation by the 
support agencies of annual cost accounting reports, and the feasibility 
of establishing a voucher allocation system for committees and Members 
using agency facilities and services.
  In fact, the Comptroller General of the United States voiced 
opposition to repealing the permanent authorization of the General 
Accounting Office. He said that if that permanent reauthorization were 
repealed, it would subject GAO to partisan political pressure which 
would jeopardize the agency's independence and credibility.
  Several of the other support agency leaders raised concerns about the 
voucher allocation system, cost accounting, staff reduction, and the 
applicability of certain Federal laws to their organizations.
  All these considerations and views were considered by the Rules 
Committee when we met on June 9 to mark up the bill. After a lengthy 
debate and several amendments, the Rules Committee unanimously reported 
a substitute amendment. At that time, there was concern that S. 1824 
included several provisions which would amend the Standing Rules of the 
Senate. Because the Senate is solely responsible for determining its 
rules of procedure, it was determined that these matters should be 
included in separate resolutions which would be acted on only by the 
Senate. The substitute amendment to S. 1824 includes those matters that 
should be appropriately considered by both Houses of Congress.
  Mr. President, the Rules Committee acted in good faith to give S. 
1824 a full and fair consideration. We built upon the record which was 
established by the joint committee, and considered the views of the 
Members of the Senate, and of the legislative support agencies. To 
adopt the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico, in my opinion, is 
unwise and ignores the work of the Rules Committee.
  More importantly, Mr. President, there is a real institutional 
concern that is raised by this amendment. It would permit the House of 
Representatives--I want to take notice of this--it would permit the 
House of Representatives, the amendment that is now before us submitted 
by the Senator from New Mexico, to determine the rules of procedure for 
the Senate. I do not think the House wants us to determine their rules 
and we certainly do not want them to determine our rules.
  As this amendment is drafted, it permits the House to legislatively 
change the committee structure of the Senate--I do not think we want 
that--the rules of committees, they can change that, and the rules of 
the floor procedure for the Senate.
  That is the reason we separated these out into resolution form so the 
Senate could vote on what applied to the Senate and the House could 
then vote on what applied to the House.
  When the Rules Committee considered S. 1824, we separated the rules 
changes and incorporated those into two separate resolutions. Those 
resolution, Senate Resolution 227 and Senate Resolution 228, were 
reported by the Rules Committee on June 16, 1994.
  Senate Resolution 227 would make changes to committee assignments and 
structure. Senate Resolution 228 contains several provisions to revise 
Senate floor procedures.
  To permit the House to debate our rules, to permit the House to have 
an opportunity to amend the Senate's rules through legislation is 
simply wrong and is in direct violation of the Constitution.
  Mr. President, the Rules Committee has given this issue its full and 
fair consideration. In the name of reform, it is inappropriate to 
disregard the work of one of the Senate's committees, in my opinion. 
This is not the way we should be considering the reform of the 
Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am sure we are not going to be too 
much longer as far as Senator Boren and myself.
  But I just want to tell the Senate as to the last statements by the 
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee with reference to giving 
the House authority to change the rules of the Senate, clearly, I hope 
that Senators know both Senator Boren and Senator Domenici well enough 
to know we would not do that and we do not believe we have done that.
  As a matter of fact, we have checked that very carefully. And the 
reason we put it all in one bill is because we agreed to all of it or 
none of it when we did this work, at least the principals did. We were 
not going to consider rules changes in the Senate, which are strictly 
the Senate's prerogative, if we did not adopt the rest of the bill.
  We have been told that it is out of order for the House to consider 
any changes in that section of this bill that applies to the rules of 
the Senate. They have no authority, no power to do that. So it is in 
that context that we put it in. We would not put it in to send them 
something they could amend or change. They have no power to change, 
according to our readings from the Parliamentarians in both bodies.
  Mr. FORD. I just say to my good friend from New Mexico, the very fact 
that we allow the House to vote on these rules, they then, in my 
opinion, are jeopardizing our ability to be the sole decisionmaker for 
the Senate. So the House rules are going to be voted on by the Senate 
and the Senate rules are going to be voted on by the House, because 
this changes the rules of both the House and the Senate and we allow 
the House to approve or disapprove it.
  So, under those circumstances--I think that I am correct; the learned 
Senator from New Mexico is a lawyer and very articulate and he 
understands this; he has been through these procedures many times--but 
when we allow the House to vote on our rules under this amendment, then 
we are giving up the ability of the Senate to provide its own rules.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from New Mexico 
is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I repeat, it is not the opinion of the 
Senator from New Mexico that the House of Representatives can do 
anything to our rules under the procedure we have chosen to follow. We 
do not believe they have any authority to amend any part of this.
  But let me give you my last observations. I hope Senators will not 
vote in favor of a point of order on this entire reform package because 
of that argument, because, let me repeat, if the point of order is 
defeated, then the bill is before the U.S. Senate. And once it is 
adopted, it is subject to amendment and we could have debates as much 
as we would like on pieces of it. We could have a full-blown debate on 
any part, including the part that my good friend, the chairman, alludes 
to with reference to the rules changes.
  I want to repeat my simple argument with reference to why the point 
of order which is going to be made shortly should not be granted. 
Frankly, it is kind of amazing--I hope Senators will consider it rather 
amazing--that we are asked to suggest reforms to the U.S. Senate, 
streamlining the committee system so that we can get our job done, we 
do that and we offer that here in good faith, and now we are told that 
it is subject to a point of order because it did not go to another 
committee to have an opportunity to look at some piece of it. What an 
irony.
  I mean, here we are suggesting a way to reform, pursuant to a 
direction given us by this body to help streamline, have your hearings, 
report a bill, and now somebody is going to come down and say, ``Kill 
the bill because it did not go to the Budget Committee for their 
consideration.''
  I really believe that would not be something that most Members would 
feel very proud of. After it is adopted, they can clearly take pieces 
of it and debate them and strike them and amend them.
  But we just want an opportunity to lay before the Senate the product 
of the bipartisan, bicameral commission that worked very hard and 
reported out exactly what is before the Senate.
  Now, as far as the Rules Committee, the Rules Committee had hearings 
and did what it thought it ought to do to the package we recommended. 
And, in a very real sense, Senator Boren and I, who worked long and 
hard for almost a year, think that the package that was presented by 
the bicameral, bipartisan commission is the best product, better than 
what the Rules Committee did.
  Now, that is nothing without precedent around here. We all vote 
changes to what committees recommend. It is nothing lacking in 
deferential treatment toward the Rules Committee. It is just saying 
that the two of us who cochaired this think this is a better product.
  And, again, rather than kill this with a procedural point of order, 
let it live and let them offer that Rules Committee package as a 
substitute and let the Senate decide which they prefer, rather than to 
get rid of reform in one fell swoop with a point of order that seems to 
me to be the kind of point of order that cries out for a waiver.
  Whenever we waive the Budget Act--you understand there is a little 
provision in there that says it is subject to a point of order unless 
the Senate in its wisdom decides to waive for good reason. And if there 
was a good reason to waive the point of order against this, we ought to 
consider that as a substantive matter.
  There is no budget involved. There are no dollars involved. It is 
just the process of sending it to the Budget Committee. After it has 
been heard, reported, and gone to the Rules Committee, send it to one 
more, and since you have not, you need 60 votes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, as the Senator well knows, he and I agree 
on a lot of items in this bill, items that I have long advocated. Some 
of them are not doable, the support is not there. So you take as large 
a step as you can.
  The Senator from New Mexico indicated that this legislation as an 
amendment on the D.C. appropriations bill does not break the Senate 
rules. And I want to reiterate that we looked at the rules of the 
Senate very closely, and we felt that this package that set the rules 
of the Senate, the number of committees, the size of committees--and 
the House vote on what we could or could not do was taking away the 
authority of the Senate to promulgate its own rules. I think that is 
simple enough.
  So what we did to try to prevent the House from having an opportunity 
to vote up or down on our rules, to amend this bill, we separated those 
items that we determined were changing the rules of the Senate, and we 
put those in resolution form.
  Now the Senator says we ought to use that as a substitute. I cannot 
substitute a resolution for a bill. I have to change the resolving 
clause, I have to do a lot of other things. So I cannot do that, and I 
think the Senator understands that.
  So I have the two resolutions and an amendment. And if the Senate in 
its wisdom could approve those two resolutions, then we have a piece of 
legislation that can go to the House, that those of us on the Rules 
Committee--and I say to my friend, we have the Republican leader on 
that committee, Senator Dole. We have Senator Byrd, who is President 
pro tempore, on the committee. We have several learned chairmen and 
ranking members. They indicated this was what they thought we ought to 
do and supported that position. I am not sure if we had any opposition. 
It may have been unanimous when it came out of there. But those 
positions were accepted.
  Now, I hate to see the House voting on Senate rules and procedures 
and the Senate voting on the House rules or procedures. That is not 
going to work. It is not going to fly. Even though you say you have it 
fixed, I think, any way you fix it, that if the House is put in a 
position to vote on ours and we are put in a position to vote on 
theirs, that we are not doing the right thing as it relates to the 
rules of the Senate.
  I do not want to be cynical. I do not want to be obstructionist. I do 
not want to do those sorts of things. I want to pass some of these 
things. And under the circumstances and the rules of the Senate is 
where we are running into problems here. I think if my colleague would 
separate out what the Rules Committee had, and do that, you have a 
better chance of not stumbling and we would have a better chance of 
making provisions that I think most of the Senators want.
  I do not have but two A's and one B. I am fine. So whatever is done 
under assignments of committees it does not bother me; I have my hands 
full. I have two committees I am chairman of on each of the majors, so 
I am really short. I am really short, based on what this reorganization 
group put forward. So it does not bother me any at all. I think that is 
all anybody should have. So I am for those things.
  But under the rules of the Senate it just will not work. Now, if we 
get 60 votes then you can do anything you want to--that is the rule of 
the Senate. But I sure do not want the House telling us and voting on 
our rules. And I can assure you, Madam President, that the House 
certainly does not want us voting on the rules and procedures of the 
House. As long as it is that way, then we are not moving in the right 
direction.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, while I oppose this amendment for a number 
of reasons, I nevertheless recognize the sincerity of its authors, 
Senators Boren and Domenici, in bringing this amendment to the Senate. 
They very ably led a delegation of 14 Senators that served on the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress. For the past year, that 
Joint Committee spent a great deal of time and effort looking at ways 
to reform Congress to make it a more accountable and responsible 
institution. The product of their efforts was referred to the Rules 
Committee. On June 9 of this year, the Rules Committee, upon which I 
serve, ordered reported S. 1824, based on the Joint Committee's 
recommendations. However, there were a number of changes agreed to by 
the Rules Committee which, I note, have been deleted in the pending 
amendment. In other words, the authors of this amendment have reversed 
the decisions reached by the Rules Committee in perfecting the 
recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress.
  The first of these changes made by the Rules Committee, which this 
amendment reverses, has to do with biennial appropriations. The Joint 
Committee recommended a biennial budget and appropriations process. 
During the Rules Committee markup on June 9, I offered an amendment to 
delete the provisions relating to biennial appropriations, leaving in 
place a requirement for 2-year budget resolutions and a requirement 
that all authorization measures be for periods of at least 2 years.
  The committee agreed with my amendment to strike biennial 
appropriations by a vote of 13-3. The case for biennial appropriations 
has simply not been made. In fact, many of the arguments advanced to 
justify biennial appropriations are close to specious. And the benefits 
claimed for biennial appropriations turn out, upon close analysis, to 
be almost entirely illusory.
  We are told that a biennial appropriation cycle will promote more 
effective oversight. Shifting to a biennial scheme will enable the 
legislative committee to focus on this function in the second session 
each Congress. So runs the argument.
  The facts simply do not support the contention that annual 
appropriations consume an inordinate amount of the Senate's time. For 
one thing, most of the heavy lifting on appropriations bills is done by 
members of the Appropriations Committee, not by the legislative 
committees. Moreover, appropriations bills per se are not as a rule 
subject to long debate and delay on the Senate floor. The data from 
last year are instructive.
  The Senate enacted a total of 19 regular and supplemental 
appropriation bills last year, including continuing resolutions. Action 
was completed on six of these on the same day they were taken up. Six 
others were taken up one day and passed the next.
  In four cases, third reading was reached on the third day. Two other 
bills took the better part of a week and one was cleared on the twelfth 
day of consideration. In each of these instances, debate was prolonged 
by amendments dealing with controversial policy issues, rather than 
funding levels. For example, the Senate revisited both abortion and the 
Davis-Bacon Act on the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Act 
(H.R. 2518).
  For fiscal year 1995 appropriations bills, as Senators are aware, six 
have been signed into law: Legislative, Foreign Operations, Military 
Construction, Energy and Water, Commerce/Justice, and VA/HUD. Of the 
remaining seven bills, all except D.C. have been cleared for the 
President's signature. If we can complete action on the D.C. bill this 
week, we will have enacted all 13 appropriation bills prior to the 
beginning of the fiscal year, for only the third time in the last two 
decades.
  It would be ironic if the D.C. appropriation bill were not enacted 
into law by October 1 because of the adoption of amendments, such as 
the pending amendment, which, according to its authors, is intended to 
assist the Congress in completing its appropriations work in a timely 
and orderly fashion.
  The appropriations process is itself an important instrument of 
congressional oversight. Requiring the agencies of the executive branch 
to submit justification for and to defend their programs and budgets 
every year provides a regular, predictable, and inescapable opportunity 
to delve into the management, utility, and costs of their activities.
  Proponents of biennialism also allege that the annual appropriations 
cycle creates too much unpredictability in funding and inhibits 
effective planning by Federal managers. This notion does not hold much 
water either. True, funding for programs and personnel may be--and 
probably is--somewhat uncertain from year to year. But this is a 
consequence not of the schedule of appropriations decisions but of 
changing priorities and a diminishing discretionary budget.
  Moreover, where there are legitimate requirements for multiyear 
commitments, the annual appropriations cycle can and routinely does 
accommodate them. Most education programs, for instance, are already 
forwarded--funded a year in advance. And in virtually every case, 
appropriations bills contain appropriations that remain available 
either for more than one fiscal year or until expended. In fact, the 
General Accounting Office has found that about 70 percent of the 
accounts on an annual appropriations cycle contain some multiple year 
or no year funds. So the financial needs of projects or activities 
extending over several years can easily be met within the framework of 
annual appropriations.
  As for planning, I would suggest that Federal managers and budget 
analysts already have enough difficulty projecting the costs and scope 
of the programs and services of their agencies. The formulation of the 
President's budget under the current cycle begins 15 to 18 months prior 
to the beginning of a fiscal year. Predicting actual requirements that 
far in advance is hardly an exact science. Extending the planning 
horizon another 12 months by moving to a biennial appropriations cycle 
would not improve the quality of agency estimates or eliminate 
unanticipated requirements.
  It is arguable that even within an ostensibly biennial framework, 
annual budget submissions would be unavoidable. Changing circumstances 
and congressional adjustments to the President's budget will have 
important implications for the second year of the biennial request. It 
follows that the President will be forced to submit a revised budget 
for the second year, and the process will simply start over.
  It is also argued that a biennial cycle will save executive branch 
agencies time and resources and enable managers to focus more on 
administering and improving their programs. This, of course, 
conveniently overlooks the fact that every department and agency has a 
specialized budget office primarily responsible for the actual 
formulation and execution of the agency's budget. Thus, there is a 
clear division of labor between budgeting and program management. The 
people who do the actual work on developing and implementing a budget 
are not the same people who are responsible for managing an agency's 
programs. Biennial appropriations will not save program managers time 
nor improve their performance.
  In addition to the change in biennial budgeting, the Rules Committee 
made other significant modifications to the product of the Joint 
Committee. Several of these changes affect the organization of the 
Senate and its consideration of legislation. And as I have said, would 
reverse the decisions of the Rules Committee in marking up S. 1824. For 
example, the pending amendment would allow the appointment of committee 
members by majority and minority leaders. The Rules Committee deleted 
that provision from the Joint Committee's recommendations. The pending 
amendment would limit the use of proxies in committee to votes where 
their use would not affect the outcome. The Rules Committee deleted 
that provision from the Joint Committee's recommendations. Finally, 
this amendment would charge time on quorum calls to the Member calling 
for a quorum in postcloture situations. Here again, the Rules Committee 
deleted that provision from the Joint Committee's recommendations.
  I supported the action of the Rules Committee in each of these 
matters that I have just raised. Therefore, I oppose the pending 
amendment in these areas and will be pleased to discuss any or all of 
them further if any Senator wishes to do so.

  Another very serious consideration is the response of the House to 
the pending amendment, if it were adopted. While the Rules Committee in 
the House has not completed action on a congressional reform package, 
Roll Call, in its Monday edition, reported that the committee's 
starting point is the chairman's mark rather than the reform package of 
the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Chairman Moakley's 
mark eliminates the Byrd rule and does not include biennial 
appropriations. An amendment offered, and agreed to, in committee, 
eliminated the provision providing for biennial budget resolutions.
  House members have also expressed a desire to amend Senate rules to 
eliminate the super-majority requirement for limiting debate. If we 
open the door to changing House rules on an appropriation bill by the 
adoption of this amendment, it is likely that the House will respond in 
kind.
  Madam President, the pending amendment deals with matters in the 
jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee and has been offered to 
legislation not reported from that committee. Under 306 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, it is not in order to 
consider matters in the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee on a bill 
not reported from that committee.
  Earlier today in debate on this amendment the senior Senator from New 
Mexico [Mr. Domenici] mentioned that his proposed amendment was subject 
to an ``arcane'' Budget Act point of order. The Budget Act point of 
order to which he referred is section 306 of the Congressional Budget 
Act, as amended. Under that section it is not in order to consider 
matters in the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee unless it is on a 
measure reported from the Budget Committee. To overcome such a point of 
order requires a vote of 60 members duly chosen and sworn.
  That point of order is the very same one made against the conference 
report on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. I would 
remind my colleagues that the point of order was made by my friend from 
New Mexico who today expresses outrage at the possibility of the use of 
the rules to bring down his amendment.
  I might add that in the case of the conference report, it was not 
subject to amendment. The Senator appears to embrace the Budget Act and 
its protections on one day and rail against them on another. The 
Senator has the right. The Budget Act is not self-executing. We all may 
choose to ignore or enforce it.
  In this instance, I do not consider the Budget Act point of order to 
be arcane. This amendment deals with significant changes to the 
Congressional Budget Act which deserve the careful consideration of 
members of the Budget and Governmental Affairs Committees. They and 
their staffs have the necessary expertise to consider all aspects of 
such important changes to the budget and appropriation processes. But 
an amendment in disagreement on an appropriation bill is not the place 
to enact fundamental changes to the budget and appropriations 
processes. We have to have this bill enacted by tomorrow night if we 
are to avoid the necessity for a continuing resolution for the 
operation of the DC government. We do not have time to take amendments 
such as this to the House, have them consider such massive changes, and 
resolve those differences to the satisfaction of either the House or 
Senate in such a short time. For these reasons, I urge Senators to vote 
against a waiver of the section 306 Budget Act point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. FORD. Madam 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. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, a parliamentary inquiry. What is the 
pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Boren amendment 
to the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I have discussed the matter with 
Senators Byrd, Domenici, and Boren. They are in agreement that we can 
proceed as follows, and this is not a unanimous-consent request. I will 
describe it first and then present it formally:
  That Senator Byrd now be recognized to make a point of order against 
the amendment; that Senator Domenici then be recognized to move to 
waive the point of order; that there then be 30 minutes of debate, half 
of which be controlled by Senator Byrd, half by Senators Domenici and 
Boren; and then the Senate vote on the motion to waive the point of 
order.
  I note the presence of my colleagues and believe that is agreeable to 
them.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we might get the yeas and nays as part of 
the unanimous consent, that it be in order----
  Mr. BYRD. No, we do not have a problem with that. Do not include that 
in the unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. OK, make it in order then, to order the yeas and nays on 
the motion to waive.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Byrd be recognized to make a point of order against the pending 
amendment; that Senator Domenici then be recognized to make a motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to that point of order; that there 
then be 30 minutes for debate on the motion to waive, equally divided 
and under the control of Senators Byrd and Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that it be 
in order to request the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on the 
motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, Senators then should be aware that a 
rollcall vote will occur at approximately 5:45 p.m.--that is 30 minutes 
from now--on the motion to waive the Budget Act, to be made shortly by 
Senator Domenici.
  I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Not at this point, Madam President.
  Madam President, the pending amendment deals with matters in the 
jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee and it has been offered to 
legislation not reported from that committee.
  Under section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
amended, it is not in order to consider matters in the jurisdiction of 
the Budget Committee on a bill not reported from that committee.
  I do not intend to speak further on my point of order. Everything I 
think that needs to be said has already been said in that respect. And 
so I now make that point of order.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget 
Act, I move to waive the point of order against the Domenici and Boren 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 30 minutes 
of debate equally divided: 15 minutes controlled by the Senator from 
West Virginia and 15 minutes controlled by the Senator from New Mexico.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have on more times than not had the 
privilege of being on the floor supporting positions of the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and President 
pro tempore of the Senate. But in this case, I am on the opposite side. 
I have expressed myself for maybe 20 minutes this morning on this 
issue, but I want to take a few minutes to speak to just two parts of 
the reason that I move to waive. There are two reasons for it.
  One, Madam President, while the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia is technically correct--that is, if you read the Budget Act, 
you are supposed to send matters to the Budget Committee that are 
within its jurisdiction--but in this case, everybody ought to know that 
we are not talking about a budget, we are not talking about any 
dollars, we are talking about reform. And in the process of reform, a 
special committee, bipartisan, bicameral, equal representation from 
both sides recommended significant changes to the way we do business in 
the Senate.
  Frankly, I believe that more than any other reform around--we 
consider reform of the system of lobbyists, we look at reform for 
campaign financing, and we say if we can change some of these things, 
it will affect how the people think about the governing body, that part 
called the legislative body. I do not believe anything--anything--will 
do more to give our people more confidence in us than if we reform the 
way we do business, to make our actions more responsible, more 
accountable, and more understandable.
  A committee worked for a year making recommendations. It is ironic to 
this Senator that after all that work--and we were charged with doing 
this in the name of reform, in the name of streamlining things--that we 
bring our recommendations to the floor and the first thing we find is 
that we are right back in the muddle that we have been asked to fix. We 
are going to get stricken on a point of order because we did not send 
the recommendations to the Budget Committee to look at.
  Frankly, it is very simple for everyone to understand what we 
recommended that affects the budget. Essentially, we have said we do 
not need to appropriate every year, do it every 2 years; we do not need 
a budget resolution every year, do it every 2 years, because a Congress 
lasts 2 years. Those essentially, and a couple more provisions, are the 
reasons that the point of order lies, because those should be looked at 
by the Budget Committee.
  Frankly, I believe when you ask this committee to consider reform, it 
is fair for this committee to at least understand that their work will 
not be killed on the floor of the Senate pursuant to a procedural 
matter that just says you have not gone through enough hoops.
  So that is the reason that I believe my waiver, which I do not make 
very often on budget matters, should be granted here today.
  Second, there should be no doubt that if the Boren-Domenici amendment 
is adopted, it is subject to amendment. So if it is not perfect, give 
it a chance.
  The action here this afternoon is to kill it, dead as can be. There 
will be no reform this year. It is gone, after more than a year of 
work. This started before the last Presidential election, Madam 
President. August 1992 was when the Senate asked that we consider 
serious reform. It will be dead and gone, finished. There will be 
nothing to vote on and, as a matter of fact, nothing to amend. We will 
be back on the appropriations bill.
  We are merely asking that the amendment not be killed in that manner; 
that it be permitted to live and see the light of day and be adopted 
subject to amendment, and then anything anybody wants to do in the next 
24, 48 hours, they can try to do to it. Then they can vote no on it if 
they do not like it. But if you want to streamline the committees, get 
rid of half the subcommittees, if you want to make our processes 
streamlined so that you do not have to appropriate every year and 
budget every year and you are mandated to authorize every year, thus 
cutting the work of the Senate in half so you have another half the 
time to look at the laws you have passed, to do oversight, that is the 
issue. Can we do more in less time?
  I yield an additional minute.
  My last comment is I hope the Senators who have listened and their 
staff who are advising do not really believe we are giving the House in 
this measure an opportunity to change our rules. I really do not 
believe that is a valid argument. Actually, we frequently send to the 
House bills--let me mention them. Gramm-Rudman had changes in our 
rules. They did not touch them because they do not have any authority 
to touch them.
  We send them in our appropriations bills funding and certain things 
about our body. Sure, they could amend them. They do not. They leave 
the Senate alone. We sent them an ethics reform package in a 
substantive law. They could have changed it. They did not change it 
because it is our business.
  The same thing will apply here. If we adopt the package, when the 
time comes to amend it, if the sections are not amended, we will not be 
giving the House an opportunity to amend our rules, and I hope no one 
will vote against it on that basis. That is not a valid reason to vote 
against it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Of course, the House would have a voice in this matter if 
it is sent back as an amendment to the pending appropriations bill. I 
hope the Senator is not trying to tell the Senate that we can change 
the Senate rules to provide that appropriations bills would be biennial 
bills and that the House will not do anything on that matter. How are 
we going to have biennial appropriations bills in the Senate unless the 
House also has that procedure?
  Madam President, let us not kid ourselves. This is an appropriations 
bill. It is not the proper place for this amendment. I hope we would 
not have any amendments attached to this bill. We are within striking 
distance of having all of the appropriations bills passed before the 
new fiscal year begins. Unless we free this bill, pass it by adopting 
the conference report, let it go on to the President so he can sign it 
into law, then not only will the District government have problems but 
we will have spoiled an excellent chance to show the people of this 
country that we can pass all of the appropriations bills prior to the 
beginning of the new fiscal year. We have done that I think twice 
before in the last 20 years. The last time I believe was 1988. I would 
like to do it again. So I hope that we will not adopt this amendment 
and we avoid that by voting down the waiver.
  Now, Madam President, my friend--and he is my friend--is critical of 
this point of order. He says that it would send--that point of order 
being made because this was not sent to the Budget Committee, and he 
bemoans the fact that this point of order will kill this amendment, and 
that therefore a procedural motion will have killed it.
  But the same point of order was made on the crime bill conference 
report. It had to do with the creation of the violent crime reduction 
trust fund. And, of course, that point of order was not even raised 
when the bill passed the Senate, at which time my distinguished friend, 
the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], and I had some discussion 
about the fact that a point of order would, indeed, lie against that 
bill. We both said, or at least I interpreted our discussion as being 
to the point that crime in this country had reached such proportions 
that it was perhaps the major issue confronting the people of this 
country, and we ought to pass the bill and not use a procedural point 
of order to kill that bill.
  I agreed that such a point of order would lie. So no opportunity was 
taken advantage of at that point. But when the conference report came 
back to this body, the point of order was made on the other side of the 
aisle, I believe, against the conference report under 306 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  So now it is said that we should not use that procedure. My friend 
from New Mexico used it then and defended it then. And he had a right 
to use it. I am not questioning his right to use it. But he has used 
the word ``ironic.'' Let me use it. It seems a little ironic to me that 
my good friend from New Mexico today is assailing in a very mild manner 
this point of order when he used it when he thought it was to his 
advantage on a very important bill. And the waiver, I believe, carried 
by something like 61 votes--carried by 1 vote, I suppose. I mean it was 
defeated by 1 vote. I believe there were 61 votes. But, anyhow, the 
waiver carried by 61 votes.
  Earlier today, in debate on this amendment, my friend mentioned that 
this proposed amendment was subject to an arcane Budget Act point of 
order--arcane. As I have already stated, that same point of order was 
made against the conference report on the crime bill.
  I would remind my colleagues that in the case of the crime bill, it 
was not subject to an amendment. But on that occasion he embraced it, 
did he not? He embraced this procedure. So he appears to embrace the 
Budget Act and its protections on one day and to rail against them on 
another. That is all right. We all rail a little now and then. The 
Senator has that right. I do not question his right to do that. But the 
Budget Act is not self-executing. We may choose to ignore it or we may 
choose to enforce it. I do not consider the Budget Act point of order 
to be arcane. I did not say it on that occasion when I opposed the 
point of order on the crime bill. I did not say that procedure was 
arcane.

  I should also point out that this requirement of 60 votes to waive 
section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, was 
added to the Budget Act as a part of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. The 
Balanced Budget and the Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 was 
itself an amendment to House Joint Resolution 372, an act increasing 
the public debt limit. Section 306 would require that original act--the 
original act included the provision, section 904, that permitted the 
waiver of any of the provisions of titles 3 and 4 of the Budget Act by 
a majority vote, and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act changed the 
requirement for waving section 306 to 60 votes in the Senate.
  I think it is a good thing. I think it is a good thing to have that 
point of order and to require 60 votes to waive it. That change was 
made in 1985 when my distinguished friend, Mr. Domenici, was chairman 
of the Budget Committee. So perhaps it depends on whose ox is being 
gored as to whether or not it is a good procedure.
  Madam President, I sincerely hope that we can dispose of this 
amendment, and that we can get on with disposing of the other 
amendments to amendments in disagreement, pass this bill, send it to 
the President, and let the American people know that we can indeed do 
our work on appropriations and do it in an orderly and timely fashion.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time remains under the 
control of the Senator from New Mexico?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes and twenty-five seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator from Oklahoma could leave me 2 
minutes and he 6.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I will just take 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I had the privilege of speaking earlier 
on the floor on this matter outlining why I feel so strongly that we 
should not miss this opportunity to bring about real reform for this 
institution. The work of the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of 
Congress has had 36 hearings. We heard from 240 witnesses, and our work 
was completed in an expeditious fashion.
  Many Members of the Senate and many Members of the House from both 
parties contributed greatly to that process, including the 
distinguished President pro tempore who lodged this point of order. Let 
me say that no one understands this institution better, is more 
knowledgeable of its history and its rules than the distinguished 
President pro tempore. It is with a great amount of humility that I 
would rise to oppose him on this particular matter and to urge that the 
Budget Act be waived so that this package can be considered and 
adopted.
  This is not the ideal way for this matter to be considered. If we had 
been able to follow an orderly process, if we had the ability to move 
these proposals through the Budget Committee it would have been far 
better. If we could have considered this proposed package of reforms as 
a freestanding matter without having to consider it in this fashion by 
attaching it as an amendment to amendments in disagreement on the D.C. 
appropriations bill, certainly that would have been preferable. As I 
said earlier, it is indeed ironic and perhaps symbolic of the need to 
reform this institution that the only way we can get a matter of this 
seriousness, a matter which would be of this much concern to not only 
Members of this institution but to the American people, the only way we 
could have it considered is to try to latch on to perhaps the last 
legislative vehicle available to us in this Congress.
  So I regret that we find ourselves having to offer a proposal of this 
significance to this particular vehicle. This is an opportunity for us 
to do many things that need to be done if we are to restore that trust 
that should exist between the American people and Congress as an 
institution.
  Madam President, I spoke of my feelings as I think about leaving the 
Senate of the United States in just a few days never to be able to 
return to the floor as a sitting Member as my time of service here 
comes to an end. I leave with, of course, the pride in having had the 
opportunity to serve here with reverence for the political process and 
constitutional process of this country. But I also leave with a great 
sense of foreboding.
  Nothing is more important than that element of trust. When I read 
polling data that indicates that over 80 percent of the American people 
no longer feel that this institution represents people like them, cares 
about people like them, that the Members here do not speak for people 
like them, I have grave concern about what might happen to the 
political process in this country. The legitimacy of our whole form of 
Government rests upon the principle that there will not be taxation or 
decisions on major policy questions without representation.
  And therefore when the people come to feel that this institution has 
so badly failed them because of flawed rules, flawed process, a flawed 
manner in which we finance campaigns with more and more money flowing 
into the process, from special interest groups largely, when they see 
that we have too many committees and subcommittees so that the Members 
of this body cannot focus attention on the important issues that should 
dominate our long-range thinking that prepare us and our country for 
future challenges which we face, when they see that we are so caught up 
in busy work with all of these myriad of committees that we have, with 
a growing burgeoning staff of bureaucracy that finally makes it 
impossible for us to act, and impossible for the American people to 
even understand the process to the degree that they can hold Members 
accountable for their action, Madam President, I believe that there is 
an urgent need for a change.
  I believe that if we fail to act in a positive fashion on major 
structural reforms in this Congress in this session that we will let 
down the American people. Here we have an opportunity to do away with 
unnecessary subcommittees. We have added over the years since 1946 many 
committees and subcommittees that are not necessary. We have grown from 
38 standing committees of the House and Senate now to almost 300 
committees and subcommittees. Our staff has grown from 2,000 to almost 
40,000, if you count support staff in such agencies as the General 
Accounting Office as well as counting direct staff which number 
somewhere between 12,000 and 14,000. Members of Congress have their 
attention spread very thin. They are trying to serve on the average of 
14 committees and subcommittees. They therefore cannot focus time and 
attention on the problems that need to be solved.
  Madam President, this is an opportunity to do something about that 
process that zaps the energy, strength and effectiveness of men and 
women who come here wanting to render a public service and give of 
themselves to make this a better country. If we do not act, who will? 
How long are we going to wait? We have waited until we now have only a 
14 percent approval rate, with only 14 percent of the American people 
saying they have confidence in Congress as an institution. Will we wait 
until it is 10 percent, 5 percent? Will we wait until it is 1 percent? 
We have already waited too long to enact basic reforms. Let us not miss 
this opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes and 19 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I hope that Members will understand that it is a 
serious matter to attach this amendment to this bill at this juncture.
  At this juncture. First of all, it will result in a continuing 
resolution in the final analysis, because it would kill the bill. And 
if the House chose to respond with amendments, which it could very well 
do, then we might consider the result. While the Rules Committee in the 
House has not completed action on a congressional reform package, Roll 
Call in its Monday edition reported that the committee's starting point 
is the chairman's mark, rather than the reform package of the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress. Chairman Moakley's mark 
eliminates the Byrd rule. Both the Senator from New Mexico and I want 
the Byrd rule. We want that Byrd rule. But if it goes over to the House 
with this amendment attached to it, then the House will certainly be 
glad to deal with that.
  Chairman Moakley's mark eliminates the Byrd rule and does not include 
by any appropriations an amendment offered and agreed to in committee 
eliminating the provision for biennial budget resolutions. So the House 
would not provide for the budget resolution. I am in agreement for 
having a biennial budget resolution. House Members have expressed a 
desire to eliminate the rule for a supermajority requirement for 
limiting debate. The best protection my friends on the other side of 
the aisle can have is the rule in this Senate that allows unlimited 
debate. Sometimes it is called ``filibuster,'' but that is one of the 
things that is unique about the Senate and makes it one of the most 
outstanding upper legislative bodies in the world.
  House Members want to get rid of the Senate rule and eliminate the 
supermajority requirement for limiting debate. Instead of 60, they 
would like to see debate limited over here by a majority, 51 votes, if 
all Senators are present and voting. So if we open the door to changing 
House rules on appropriations rules by the adoption of this amendment, 
it is likely that the House will respond in kind. Do not kid yourself.
  Madam President, I hope that the Senators will reject the motion to 
waive so that this amendment will fall. It is the underlying amendment, 
and it will carry with it the amendment in the second degree. Then we 
can get on with our business.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 5 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, first, let me say that the Senator 
knows that many of the things he just said I agree with. But I really 
hope that the Senate understands the predicament that we find ourselves 
in. I did not want to put this amendment to offer the reform package on 
an appropriations bill. When and where would I offer it? There is no 
time and no place, and we are ready to go home. I do not know if we are 
coming back in a lame duck session. I see somebody here who may have 
more to say about that than any of us. Clearly, there was no intention 
to even let the Senate consider this. So we had no alternative. We 
tried it here. I would prefer to do it in a much more appropriate 
manner with a week's debate with a freestanding bill.
  Second, if I used the word ``arcane,'' I say to my friend from West 
Virginia that I meant arcane in its application, not arcane in that the 
rule is arcane. But, frankly, can the Senate on its own decide whether 
it wants 2-year budgeting and 2-year appropriations? Can we decide that 
on our own, or must we kill this bill and send it to the Budget 
Committee so that they can consider that? That is the issue. It is not 
something that is difficult, some budgetese, some hard outyear funding. 
The issue is that they are supposed to look at it in the Budget 
Committee because it has matters in the Budget Act. The matters 
essentially are: Do you want 1-year appropriations and to do it every 
single year? Or do you want to do it every 2 years? Do you want an 
annual resolution on the budget or every 2 years? You can vote on that 
today, instead of using a rule that would say send it back to the 
Budget Committee for legislation. I do not have any doubt that this 
bill deserves much more debate. Neither do I have any doubt that reform 
of the U.S. Senate by way of fewer committees, and all the other things 
we have been talking about, is dead if you give to this bill the death 
knell of a point of order. I think this is the right time to waive and 
is appropriate under the law. I hope the Senate will waive the Budget 
Act and proceed to debate the bill.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 55 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, while I oppose this amendment for a number 
of reasons, I nevertheless recognize the sincerity of its authors, 
Senators Boren and Domenici, in bringing the amendment to the Senate. I 
know they are sincere about that. They very ably led a delegation of 14 
Senators that served on the Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress. And for the past many months, that Joint Committee spent a 
great deal of time and effort looking at ways to reform Congress to 
make it a more responsible institution.
  There are many things in their product that I can support, and there 
are some features of it that I would suggest be changed. There are 
other things I would suggest be added. But this is not the time for 
that. I hope that Senators will vote against the motion to waive and 
free the appropriation bill for final action and signature by the 
President.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I rise to speak very briefly regarding 
the amendment by Senators Domenici and Boren. These superb colleagues 
consistently demonstrate what the term statesmanship truly means. I 
will take a more extensive opportunity prior to the end of this 
Congress to pay tribute to Senator Boren, and to my other retiring 
colleagues. But today, I want to thank him for what he has tried to 
accomplish with this legislation. Senator Boren has a passion for 
bipartisanship, and I am proud to have come here with him, and to have 
served with him. And there is no more solid, dedicated, hard-working, 
conscientious Member of this body than Senator Domenici. The brokerage 
house commercial could have been about him--when he talks people 
listen, and if they don't--they should.
  Any committee established to reform an institution which is over 200 
years old has a formidable, uphill task. It is inescapable that if such 
a committee does its work it will change the status quo and negatively 
impact the jealously guarded power of some. It is also true that if the 
recommendations of the committee are at all comprehensive, no one will 
totally embrace each of its provisions.
  But the debate on the issue of congressional reform must proceed, and 
I commend the sponsors of this amendment, which incorporates the 
recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. 
Accordingly, I intend to vote with Senators Domenici and Boren on any 
procedural motion which furthers the debate on this issue. The 
recommendations of the committee were thoughtfully reached over a great 
deal of time, and in consideration of painstakingly detailed testimony. 
Viewed in their totality, I agree with most of the recommendations of 
the Joint Committee.
  I particularly applaud their efforts to cut half the subcommittees in 
the Senate, to cut Senate committee assignments, to cut Senate staff, 
to go to a 2-year budget cycle, to establish a regular review of 
support agencies like GAO, to require quarterly deficit reports, and to 
require unused committee or office personal office funds to go to 
deficit reduction, and not back into the ``congressional pot''.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in waiving the point of order to this 
amendment.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I support congressional reform that 
will make the legislative process more efficient and which will make 
the Senate more responsive to the people that we serve. The matter 
before us was fully debated in the Rules Committee, on which I serve. 
This amendment in bill form was debated in the Rules Committee and 
amended by that committee. Unfortunately the changes made by the Rules 
Committee to that bill have not been included in this amendment. I 
cannot support this effort to circumvent the committee process where 
debate on this amendment has occurred and produced a legislative 
product, thus I cannot support this amendment.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Domenici 
amendment to the amendments in disagreement to the District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act. This amendment would attach the so-called 
congressional reform package to the appropriations for the District of 
Columbia.
  Mr. President, I would begin by saying that congressional reform--
true reform--is in order. My colleagues have indicated their desire for 
reform. The American public has called for reform. President Clinton 
and Vice President Gore were elected on a platform of reform. 
Unfortunately, this is not reform.
  Many times I have been dismayed by the pace of this body. It can 
frequently move too slow. However, the procedure by which a bill 
becomes law necessarily takes time. There are many opportunities for 
public input, committee review, and debate. Sadly, this effort at 
reform has by-passed much of that process. That is simply 
inappropriate.
  Substantively, it is true that this amendment contains improvements. 
It also has numerous flaws. First it tinkers with the very rules which 
differentiate this body from the House. Second, it would eliminate the 
Joint Committee on Taxation--a step which would dramatically reduce the 
efficiency of our budgeting process. As a resource both the House and 
the Senate, Joint Tax provides invaluable and timely technical 
assistance and independent revenue estimates.
  And finally, Mr. President, this amendment, jeopardizes the ability 
of this Senator to serve all his constituents through a dramatic change 
in committee selection.
  If this amendment were enacted, I would be bumped from the Senate 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. In 1989 I fought 
hard to get on that committee to represent Montana's largest industry 
more effectively. This position has been very important as I addressed 
the needs of Montana's agriculture and forestry industries.
  As we enter 1995, it is likely that major farm legislation will be 
considered and I intend to see that farm policy is crafted which will 
meet the needs of this important Montana constituency. I cannot stand 
idly by as this proposal jeopardizes my ability to serve this group.
  I will continue to fight for Montana as long as I serve in this body. 
And in this instance, that means I must vigorously oppose this 
amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield back any time I may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been consumed.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 313 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Stevens

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Robb
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 58, the nays 
are 41. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment falls.
  Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Maine is recognized.


 Amendment No. 2594 (to House amendment to Senate amendment No. 6), As 
                                Modified

  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I call for the regular order, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order? Is the Senator seeking to 
call up his amendment?
  Mr. COHEN. I am.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I suggest the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is correct. Does the 
Senator from Maine wish to be recognized?


 Amendment No. 2594 (to House amendment to Senate amendment No. 6), As 
                            Modified Further

  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I wish to further modify my first-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his 
amendment.
  The further modification to the amendment (No. 2594) is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new 
     subtitle:

                             ``Subtitle''.

  Mr. COHEN. If I might explain very briefly, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may explain, and I ask Senators 
who are conversing to my left, please withhold.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, the modification I sent to the desk was 
simply a technical one in nature. It did not alter the substance of the 
amendment that I offered earlier today that was amended by the Senator 
from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici].
  Basically, we are back to discussing health care fraud and, as we 
discussed it at length yesterday, this is an opportunity for us to go 
on record trying to pass legislation that will save billions of dollars 
that are currently being wasted through fraud and abuse in the health 
care system.
  This is an amendment which is supported by virtually everyone.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Chair asks Senators to the left of the well to also withhold 
their conversation.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, will the distinguished Senator from Maine 
allow me to ask him a question?
  Mr. COHEN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator has an amendment in the second degree to his 
amendment? So we cannot vote on the Senator's amendment; we would have 
to vote on the amendment to his amendment, and that amendment is the 
so-called Dole health care bill?
  Mr. COHEN. No. Senator Domenici had offered an amendment in the 
second degree to mine, which is not the Dole health care bill.
  Mr. FORD. What is the amendment, then, in the second degree?
  Mr. COHEN. Simply a change in date.
  Mr. FORD. A change in date? Is that all? What change in the date 
would that be, then? It is identical? You modified his amendment as you 
modified yours, except for the date?
  Mr. COHEN. Except for the date; 1 day's difference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator modified the amendment of the Senator from New 
Mexico? I did not think you had a right to modify his amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. No, I modified my amendment, the first-degree amendment, 
that he then amended in the second degree. I modified the underlying 
amendment.
  Mr. FORD. We are trying to unravel this Christmas tree a little bit. 
I want to be sure we are not thinking we are going one route rather 
than another, and I want to be sure we understand--at least that this 
Senator understands--what you are trying to do.
  Mr. COHEN. The current situation is the amendment I have currently 
offered dealing with health care fraud was amended in the second degree 
by Senator Domenici, that second-degree amendment, pending as well, and 
that deals solely with the subject of health care fraud.
  Mr. FORD. And you modified yours on two separate occasions?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I might say, when I offered the modification, I say to 
my friend, I did not change everything in his amendment. He is changing 
something in his amendment that remained there. I had not touched that 
and he found an error in  that, in the underlying amendment.

  Mr. FORD. So actually your amendment is not the same as the amendment 
in the first degree?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. FORD. So if we vote on his, it would change your amendment.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will recognize the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for a parliamentary inquiry, but Senators need to address 
each other through the Chair, in the third person.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President. This Senator 
needs to understand whether the present parliamentary situation is such 
that the amendment I put forth has now been stricken from the Cohen-
Domenici amendment. Is that correct? Is that correct, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine needs to clarify the 
substance of his amendment. That should answer the question of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I would like to clarify it. Earlier 
today, I took the floor to accept the amendment of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I then sent a modification to the desk, and at that 
point, Senator Domenici then amended the proposal in the second degree. 
So that effectively wiped away the amendment of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. That was done earlier today, and not through the 
modification I just offered. The modification I just offered to my 
first-degree amendment was in the nature of a technical amendment. It 
only changed simply a word dealing with subtitles.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Parliamentary inquiry. Madam President, would my 
colleague from Maine clarify whether the amendment that was just 
amended does not still include my amendment, before his technical 
modification just now?
  Mr. COHEN. It did not. It does not. By virtue of having accepted your 
amendment earlier today, I believe that the parliamentary situation was 
that your amendment was stricken at that time.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Then, Madam President, the parliamentary situation is 
that my amendment can be reoffered when I am recognized duly after this 
amendment has been dealt with?
  Mr. COHEN. Not on this amendment, but an amendment in disagreement, 
yes.
  Mr. WOFFORD. The Senator still has his right to put his amendment to 
the Cohen amendment before it is----
  Mr. COHEN. No.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Could the Parliamentarian----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could the Senator repeat his question to the 
Senator from Maine, the Chair was consulting the Parliamentarian 
because this is becoming a complicated situation.
  Mr. WOFFORD. For this Senator, too. I would like a parliamentary 
clarification as to whether I would have the right to put my amendment 
forth to the Cohen amendment before the Cohen amendment is adopted. I 
look forward to voting for the Cohen amendment, but I also look forward 
to having a vote on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is currently a second-degree amendment 
pending to the Cohen amendment. When that second-degree amendment is 
disposed of, the Cohen amendment could be further amended.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. COHEN. But then it has to dispose of the Domenici second-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Chair might note 
to the Senator from Maine, that microphone is not working as well to 
hear the amplification of his remarks.
  Mr. COHEN. I will try and hold it up as close as possible.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator from Maine have the floor?
  Mr. COHEN. I do.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield to me for 30 seconds to speak on 
an unrelated item?
  Mr. COHEN. Without losing my right to the floor, certainly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Arkansas 
may proceed.

                          ____________________