[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14-S18]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           THE 104TH CONGRESS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today we begin a new session of Congress. 
I know all my colleagues are eager to move ahead with the Nation's 
business.
  In some ways, we face circumstances that earlier generations of 
Americans faced as well. At the beginning of our Nation's existence, 
after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the former colonies 
busied themselves establishing legislatures and drafting constitutions.
  It must have been a heady time. Men, for they were all men at that 
time, who had been colonial appointees began to see themselves for the 
first time as legislators, potential leaders, people who could steer 
their States' destinies.
  In the State of Pennsylvania, the legislature spent several months 
thrashing over the outlines of a new constitution but found itself, 
months later, without a finished product.
  Meanwhile, the life of the State continued. Citizens woke each 
morning, attended to their affairs, transacted their business, and 
seemed not to notice that they were without a constitution.
  Ben Franklin pointed out the evident danger: ``Gentleman,'' he said, 
``You see that we have been living under anarchy, yet the business of 
living has gone on as usual. Be careful; if our debates go on much 
longer, people may come to see that they can get along very well 
without us.''
  It is somewhat in this spirit that I approach the beginning of the 
104th Congress. We, too, will be judged less by our rhetoric than by 
our accomplishments.
  Today, I offer the first five bills that my Democratic colleagues and 
I will seek to move in this Congress. They are bills that speak to 
three critical areas I believe should be the focus of our efforts in 
the 104th Congress--economic opportunities for working American 
families, the values in our social fabric that bind us together as a 
society, and a determination that we end business as usual in all 
aspects of Government.
  The first bill, S. 6, is designed to be for American workers today 
what the GI bill was for American soldiers after the Second World War. 
The Working Americans Opportunity Act takes the funds now used for 20 
major job training programs and turns them into vouchers so Americans 
can buy the training and education they need themselves. In this way, 
we can streamline and consolidate nine job training laws to focus more 
services and to redirect the funds to the people who need the training 
in the first place.
  Our limited job-training resources should be directed to those who 
will benefit from training, not siphoned off to support the 
administrative costs of overlapping, fragmented, and outdated programs.
  The GI bill is rightly credited with lifting American productivity, 
economic growth, and living standards. It did that by giving all 
returning GI's--millions of men and women in the aggregate--the ability 
to go back to school and make up for the years they sacrificed to their 
Nation's service in war.
  It was not only well-deserved reward for veterans. It was one of the 
best investments the Government ever made. The GI bill more than repaid 
its costs many times over in worker income, in productivity, in 
economic growth, in State and Federal taxes, in virtually every other 
way.
  At the end of the cold war years, we're not facing an army of 
returning veterans. We are facing a society that is emerging from a 
preoccupation with military spending and the military sciences, and 
turning to cope with a new world of technological advance that holds 
enormous promise for those who can learn to participate in it.
  Our bill, therefore, will consolidate old job training programs and 
put money directly into the hands of those who need training, not to 
bureaucratic overhead. Americans need the tools to enter fully into the 
new technological workplace. That is what our first bill will do. It 
will be a workers' GI bill to 
[[Page S15]] give those in older industries, in plants that are 
relocating abroad, or in regions where people's job skills do not match 
employers' needs the chance to learn new skills, make themselves 
employable, enter new industries, and move forward with our growing 
economy.
  S. 7 is the Family Health Insurance Protection Act. It includes the 
measures that even the anti-health-care-reform crowd last year said 
they wanted. Let us find out if they are being straight or are just 
pulling another one over on the American people.
  Democrats think it is way past time to act. Not only are health care 
costs for ordinary people going through the roof, they are also going 
to bust the Federal budget, and we all know who's going to pay for that 
when it happens.
  It is consistent with the goals outlined in bills introduced by both 
Republicans and Democrats and with the vision the President outlined in 
a latter to the congressional leadership last week.
  Our health reform bill is straightforward and sensible.
  It prevents insurance companies from raising rates because you get 
sick. Why? Because health insurance is supposed to be a pooled risk. 
The insurer, as well as the insured, takes a risk.
  Our bill also prohibits refusal of insurance because of preexisting 
conditions. The condition of being human makes us all susceptible to 
illness, accidents, and bad luck. That is what insurance is supposed to 
compensate for, not to profit from.
  Jean and Greg Puls of Sioux Falls, SD, know this all too well. Their 
10-year-old son, Matthew, has diabetes. When Jean's employer switched 
health policies, the new insurer refused to cover Matthew. Jean and 
Greg faced a frantic search for an insurer who would.
  They were turned down by dozens of companies and were finally forced 
to purchase an out-of-State policy that still won't cover Matthews's 
diabetes for a whole year.
  Jean Puls says that for all the money they have paid into the health 
care system, they have been unable to get the simple peace of mind they 
seek. And she is right. A system which produces this result is not 
right
  Our bill requires all insurers to offer Americans one plan of 
insurance coverage as good as that which covers any Member of 
Congress--Democrat or Republican.
  If we deserve it, then certainly so do the people whose tax dollars 
pay our wages.
  Our bill lets people who are self-employed deduct their insurance 
premium costs just like big corporations can. That is the minimally 
fair thing we can do for American farmers and self-employed store 
owners, accountants, mechanics, and lawn-service operators, all the 
millions of people who have taken the real risk of earning their own 
income by their own hard work and enterprise. Let them deduct their 
health insurance costs, too.
  Our health reform bill prohibits insurance companies from hiding 
important information in the fine print. We need truth in labeling. 
People who market beef have to tell consumers how many grams of fat 
their product contains. It is about time the insurance companies told 
us what their fat content is. Why should not Americans get the same 
accountability from health insurers as we expect from food producers 
and toy manufacturers?
  Our health reform bill calls for standard forms. An inflamed appendix 
taken out in Seattle doesn't demand anything different than an inflamed 
appendix removed in Boston.
  And it will not be done better or worse because of the shape of a 
payment form. Meanwhile, we are talking about millions of wasted hours 
by doctors, nurses, administrative staff, and, not least, the American 
taxpayer just to get reimbursed for the health care our premiums are 
supposed to cover.
  Our health care reform bill just asks the private insurance market to 
do what Government is trying to do. Let it get rid of the bloated 
bureaucrats. Let it cut the overhead. Let it streamline and serve its 
customers, not itself.
  Is there any reason that Americans have to fill out more forms, 
provide duplicative information more times, fight for longer on the 
phone with self-appointed bureaucrats in the health insurance industry 
than the people of any other industrialized nation? Is there any reason 
that an American hospital has twice as many clerical workers as a 
Canadian one? Does pushing paper make sick people get better? Let 
health care professionals practice medicine, not administer 
bookkeepers.
  This bill represents, frankly, a downpayment on the goal of ensuring 
all Americans have access to affordable quality health care coverage.
  Before we achieve that goal, however, other more difficult issues 
will have to be resolved, especially long-term care and the Federal 
barriers to State-level reform efforts. The bill we offer is simply a 
first step, but I do hope that Democrats and Republicans can again 
reflect the consensus these provisions have reflected in the last 
Congress and work together to develop compromises on the more difficult 
matters.
  I cannot--I will not--support the passage of any reform measure, 
however, that increases the deficit.
  When the majority leader and my colleagues on the Finance Committee 
are ready to move forward on the health reforms we present today, we 
will have to agree on appropriate offsetting savings to ensure that 
every reform provision is paid for over a 10-year period of time. 
Health care reform cannot be undertaken at the cost of more unpaid 
bills passed along to our children and to their children.
  Our third bill, S. 8, is legislation to deal with teen pregnancy and 
parents who abandon their children. Our bill does not finance 
orphanages. One of our Democratic colleagues, Senator Campbell of 
Colorado, has the distinction of actually having been placed in an 
orphanage as a child, so he speaks from experience, not dealing in 
Hollywood movies. His story is one which could benefit us all. If you 
have not had the opportunity to read his biography, I would encourage 
you, Mr. President, and others to do so. It is a telling story of a man 
who has come a long way, given the very difficult beginning that he had 
experienced as a child.
  He learned, as many of us now know, that orphanages are not a home. 
All too often, they are not even a decent substitute for a home. Even 
the best orphanage should never be used to undermine an intact family 
relationship.
  The Teen Pregnancy Prevention and Parental Responsibility Act, 
instead, requires underaged teen mothers to live with their families or 
at least find themselves in a supervised home setting if they want to 
qualify for AFDC. Children having children is tragic, and the cycle can 
only be ended by making sure that parents of these children grow up and 
become adults themselves. There may be no sure-fire way to achieve this 
but clearly encouraging 16-year-olds to set up homes by themselves has 
not proved to be the answer and can never be the answer. They should 
stay with their families or in supervised group homes where their lives 
have some discipline, some guidance, some routine, some sense of 
grounding that will let them escape the cycle of dependency and become 
self-supporting adults.
  In addition, teen parents should stay in school or go back to school 
and graduate. Our bill lets States use bonuses or benefit reductions to 
give teen parents an incentive to finish school. Completing high school 
is the first step toward self-sufficiency.
  I recognize that this does not sound very flashy, but the parental 
shortcomings that can blight a child's life--and do blight too many 
children's lives today--require serious attention. The real needs of 
children demand sound policies, not sound bites.
  Our bill also asks States to intensify their efforts to identify 
noncustodial parents and require them to contribute to the upbringing 
of their own children. States should ensure that their welfare offices 
can access other State records such as professional licensing, vehicle 
registration, and personal property records. Paternity establishment 
laws should also be streamlined.
  I am always surprised to hear so much anger vented against young 
women as though they have achieved pregnancy unaided. What about the 
young men? Where is the heated political rhetoric aimed at them?
  What about middle-class men who divorce and abandon their families? 
Where is the political rhetoric telling them to be ashamed of 
themselves? People--be they men or women--whose 
[[Page S16]] actions result in parenthood must accept responsibility 
for their children.
  So our bill on teenage pregnancy is short on rhetoric and symbols. I 
have long been an ardent admirer of Spencer Tracy, but anyone who 
thinks a 1938 movie about Boys Town has any bearing on real life 
children, real orphanages, or real families in 1995 is well out of 
touch with reality.
  The bill that will be designated S. 9, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, 
will direct Congress to enact legislation this year that will result in 
a balanced budget by the year 2003. If a goal is important enough to 
justify amending the Constitution, certainly it ought to be important 
enough to inspire the real work of deficit reduction starting this 
year.
  I have supported and voted for balanced budget amendments in the 
past, but a balanced budget amendment that sets forth an airy hope in 
the place of real promise to balance the budget is not good enough.
  To suggest that a balanced budget amendment in and of itself solves 
the problem is a copout. It is all show and no delivery. It is like a 
young man who gets his first job and his first credit card. He charges 
up to the limit, and then he promises, as soon as he has paid it down, 
he will straighten up and pay his balance every month. But in real life 
we know that does not happen. He pays down just enough to go on another 
spending spree, or get another credit card with a new spending limit.
  Balancing the Federal budget has been a Republican campaign promise 
for so long it is hard to remember which budget they are talking about. 
They said they intended to balance the budget in 1980, when they 
elected Ronald Reagan. Then they said they were going to balance it 
after 1984, conveniently not in the year he was actually running for 
reelection. Then they said George Bush was going to balance the budget. 
But what does the record show? Unfortunately, it shows the opposite.
  In 1980, when President Ronald Reagan took office, he was poised to 
present to the Congress a plan to reduce the deficit as he promised. At 
that time, when the Republicans had the majority in the Senate, the 
national debt was just over $1 trillion.
  It was a debt that took 200 years to accumulate, 200 years of 
expanding the Nation to its westernmost limits, with all the roads, 
rails, bridges needed, 200 years encompassing a Civil War, two world 
wars, Korea, Vietnam, 200 years of creating the American dream. Almost 
$1 trillion is a lot of money. And we have a lot of country to show for 
it. But it took President Reagan a mere 8 years to more than double 
that 200 years' worth of debt.
  What do we have to show for it? It then took President Bush just 
another 4 years to add yet another trillion. So today, Mr. President, 
the heirs of that budgetary tradition say they are going to increase 
defense spending; they are going to cut taxes for the wealthy; and--
guess what?--they are going to balance the Federal budget. It sounds 
like deja vu all over again, to paraphrase somebody we all know--Yogi 
Berra.
  I support, as I said a moment ago, a balanced budget. So do a 
majority of Democratic Senators. The difference between our position 
and that of many of our Republican colleagues is that we have already 
taken some very tough votes to do it. The last Congress, the 103d, 
passed the President's first budget which cut $500 billion in real 
defined and detailed spending over 5 years.
  We are reaping the benefit of our work now in reduced deficits, and a 
healthy, growing economy. The President deserves credit for offering 
that budget in 1993 and for fighting for it.
  We knew in 1993 that our deficit-cutting work that year would be only 
the beginning. Now it is 1995, and we know another installment of 
spending cuts is due. We say that we should do what we did in 1993--lay 
out the honest, detailed, and real cuts that will bring the deficit 
onto a downward path.
  The balanced budget amendment, standing alone, simply provides a 
process by which something should be done over the next 7 years. Our 
bill says, let us start doing it now.
  We have to pay attention to the numbers. When you balance your 
household budget, you do not do it on the assumption that you are going 
to win the Publishers' Clearinghouse Sweepstakes on January 31 so the 
mortgage payments will be taken care of. You balance a household budget 
by looking at what you earn, what you spend, and where the numbers do 
not add up. So let us do some looking.
  If we are going to balance the budget by 2003, as the Republicans 
tell us they will, it is going to mean we start right now, this year, 
and start for real.
  There is a very real and expensive price in delay. If anyone wants to 
put off any heavy lifting for a year or maybe 2 years, before putting 
us on a path to balance the budget by 2003, they're going to cost us 
another $160 billion in debt. That is debt on top of the $3-trillion 
debt that the Republicans have already given us. It is debt that could 
be avoided by reducing the deficit now instead of delaying.
  There is another reason for acting now. It is called interest on the 
debt. It is a price every American taxpayer pays, whether he knows it 
or not, and whether he likes it or not.
  If we do nothing about balancing the budget for 2 years, to get past 
the next election before taking the tough actions needed to balance the 
budget by 2003, all of us will be chipping in an extra $91 billion in 
interest to pay for these election-year promises. It is nice to have 
people make promises in election years. But nice feelings cannot 
justify $91 billion in additional interest on the debt. The price is 
too high.
  If we wait until 1997 to start balancing the budget, we will pay 
another $303 billion--on top of the $3-trillion debt--that could be 
avoided simply by acting now rather than later.
  The bill I am introducing draws on our past experience with balanced 
budget rhetoric and requires that we actually start now, this year, to 
do what we are willing to do to make our effort a meaningful part of 
the U.S. Constitution.
  Last, but in some ways, most important of all, is the bill we call S. 
10. That is the Comprehensive Congressional Reform Act. It is a bill 
with three titles. It builds on the compromise legislation that was 
developed last year, but blocked at the end of the session.
  The first title will finally, and without equivocation, extend to the 
Congress the laws that cover all other employers in this country. It 
will require the Congress to abide by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
which governs time and salary issues, by the Federal Labor-Management 
Relations Act, which provides Federal workers the right to bargain 
collectively, the workplace safety law, the Occupational Health and 
Safety Act, the Plant Closing and Notification Act, the Employee 
Polygraph Testing Act, and the Veterans Preference and Retention Act.
  In addition, the Democratic congressional coverage legislation 
includes the civil rights laws, under which the Senate has been 
operating since 1991, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which has 
applied to Congress since it was signed into law in 1993.
  This provision is in all essential aspects the same bipartisan bill 
that was worked out by Senators Glenn, Lieberman, and Grassley last 
session, but which was prevented from reaching the Senate floor by the 
objection of a Republican Senator.
  I hope and expect our Republican colleagues will join, rather than 
obstruct, the effort to enact these needed reforms as soon as possible 
this year.
  The second title of S. 10 will address the problem of undue influence 
from special interests.
  Americans learned last year that something like $50 million was spent 
to defeat health care reform legislation--not just to defeat the 
President's bill, but to defeat any reform bill.
  The special interest money groups spent more on stopping this 
legislation than on any other single issue, both in terms of direct 
lobbying and in campaign contributions.
  In the closing days of the 103d Congress, the ramifications of the 
crusade to defeat health care reform spilled over into another 
important debate: The debate over whether or not to rein in the ever-
present grip of lobbyists on our legislative process.
  In May 1993, the Senate passed lobby reform by a vote of 95 to 2. 
Yet, when push came to shove, with Congress facing an adjournment 
deadline, our Republican colleagues invented pretexts and encouraged 
their talk-radio friends to help beat the lobby reform bill. As one of 
our colleagues noted, Republican 
[[Page S17]] Senators were cheered by lobbyists lining the hallway off 
this Chamber after Republicans killed the lobbying bill last fall.
  So let us be clear on what happened. There was no grassroots 
opposition to this bill. It was not ordinary citizens who wanted to 
kill this bill. Far from it.
  It was the special interest lobbyists who could not stand it.
  I am hoping that common decency will prevail in this Congress this 
year. The language I am offering in S. 10 is the language adopted 
overwhelmingly last summer by most of the Members still here in this 
body.
  It includes the provisions the new Speaker of the House, Newt 
Gingrich, demanded be incorporated last summer. They are the same 
provisions that were negotiated with Catholic charities, Baptist 
charities, Jewish groups, and every other religious organization of any 
standing in this country, and which were acceptable to all of them, 
because they did not threaten any of their legitimate activities.
  Title II of S. 10 does not affect grassroots lobbying for 
congressional action to resolve legitimate problems. No real grassroots 
group wants to kill lobbying reform. The reason for that is simple.
  It is because the narrow special interest groups who would be 
affected by the bill can buy access, can buy attention, can buy 
sympathy, and can buy action with money that real grassroots groups 
could never hope to match. True grassroots lobby efforts offer only the 
populist power of their ideas.
  There is not a genuine grassroots group out there that is not out-
spent, out-gifted, out-junketed, and out-maneuvered by the Washington 
lobbying crowd. It is time to redress that imbalance.
  Why is so much made of those who feel so passionately about an issue 
that they want to allocate private resources to influence national 
policy? I suggest that when a foreign-owned communications cartel can 
offer the new Speaker of the House $4.5 million for a book, we should 
be wary of the real agenda behind that offer. I am pleased the new 
Speaker has now realized what an appearance that presents.
  Title II of the Democratic congressional reform bill is the 
legislation that Speaker Gingrich said he wanted, asked for, demanded. 
Then, when it looked as though it could actually prevail, it is the 
legislation that Speaker Gingrich asked his supporters in the talk-show 
field to fight.
  Title II of this Democratic reform bill also puts in the legislation 
our commitment to return control of Government to the American people 
by outlawing the practice of lobbyists providing gifts, no matter how 
seemingly insignificant, to Senators and staff.
  The lobby and gift reform provisions are simple. No gifts from 
registered lobbyists. No meals, no travel, no taxi cab rides, no sports 
tickets, no nothing. They will not need complicated regulations to be 
understood. They are that straightforward.
  Who is a lobbyist? Anyone who gets $2,500 in 6 months to work the 
Congress or the Government. They are required to disclose publicly who 
they are, what they earn, who pays them, and who they are talking to.
  That is not because we in Congress do not know who they are. We know 
well enough. It is to tell the American public who these people are and 
what they are doing.
  Congressional so-called reform that does not cover goodies from 
lobbyists is not reform. It is a smokescreen. It is telling American 
voters, it is back to business as usual. You voted for us because we 
promised reform, but we know you are going to tune out now. It is 
taking the American public for a ride. If we are to ignore those 
reforms, the American people are not prepared for a ride of that kind.
  As for the seriousness of this effort, the proof of the pudding will 
be self-evident. If anyone is sincere about congressional reform, this 
is the very least they will need to vote for.
  If anyone says they are serious about reform and blocks this bill, 
there will be little doubt that they are not serious at all.
  I hope that will not happen for many reasons, but most of all, I hope 
it won't happen, because our democracy depends upon a higher level of 
trust. I hope Republican Senators will not block the gift and lobbying 
reform provisions, as they did last year.
  Title III of the Democratic congressional reform bill is designed to 
reform the way congressional political campaigns operate.
  Again, this proposal does not break new ground. It is the bill passed 
by the Senate in 1993, but which was filibustered to prevent its going 
to conference last year. The bill is designed to do what everyone knows 
needs to be done, and that is to cut the money chase out of elected 
public life.
  Our bill would ban PAC contributions. It would outlaw for 1 year 
lobbying of an elected official to whom the lobbyist gave money. It 
would ban for 1 year contributions from a lobbyist to a Member who that 
lobbyist had contacted on business. It would expand disclosure of so-
called independent expenditures.
  It would create a flexible spending ceiling, based on a State's 
voting age population. It would reward candidates who agreed to comply 
with that spending ceiling with broadcast discounts. Its costs could 
easily be paid without asking for a penny from middle-class taxpayers, 
for instance by fees on lobbying.
  In short, the campaign finance reform proposal would do what everyone 
is willing to say should be the law, but which too many are unwilling 
to actually see become law. It is time to put that sham behind us, too.
  If we are serious about congressional reform, campaign finance reform 
is imperative. If we are not serious, the American people will know 
what conclusions to draw.
  I believe these five pieces of legislation reflect the priorities 
Americans expect us to set and respond to the real needs people face.
  The extremes have had their say. They have the luxury of certainty.
  We who try to work in the center are forced to rely on what we can 
learn, what we can know, and to move forward with our best efforts, not 
ironclad guarantees, because there are no guarantees in human life.
  Each of the bills we introduce today stands for a core principle in 
which we believe. None is startling, but I believe each is a step in 
the right direction. Together, they are a foundation on which to build.
  We live in a tumultuous time fraught with uncertainty for many 
Americans. As lawmakers, our responsibility is to start restoring a 
sense of economic and personal security for working Americans.
  Job training and education as a priority reflects the fact that we 
are a society made up of working people, and they must come first. If 
we invest in our own knowledge, our own skills, our own abilities and 
talents, there is not anything we cannot achieve. Give Americans the 
tools, and they will do the job. Our bill is the tool.
  Health care reforms reflect the fact that viruses and cancers and 
accidents happen to people without reference to their wealth or their 
personal insurance status or their job status. Every American's 
economic and personal security is at stake. They deserve action, not 
excuses.
  Our effort on teen pregnancy reflects the commonsense fact that work, 
effort, and personal discipline are part of the lives of most 
Americans. Indeed, they help shape most of what is worthwhile in our 
lives. Government programs ought to reflect that common understanding 
in the way they operate, too.
  A Federal budget is more than a lifeless symbol of fiscal 
responsibility. It is the road map of our society and a reflection of 
our values. What are we willing to spend taxes for? Children? Schools? 
Jail cells? Special benefits for one or another special interest? 
Balancing the budget is not about gutting the government.
  It is about doing what government should do: Those things for all of 
us as a society that none of us can do individually for ourselves. Safe 
drinking water and highways, clean air and a safe food supply, things 
that government can do if done efficiently and effectively.
  Balancing the budget tells us that we're prepared to pay for the kind 
of society we want to be. The budget's shape matters as much as its 
size. It is been too big, too bloated, too long. And we want to start 
on the road to balancing it now.
  [[Page S18]] And, of course, congressional reform is an important 
symbol of self-restraint at the government level. If the people elected 
to government cannot impose restraints upon themselves and treat 
themselves like they treat others, what confidence can Americans have 
that government will act in their best interests?
  I believe, based on many statements by my Republican colleagues, that 
there is much common ground on which we can work, provided that we have 
the will to do so.
  I want to offer my assurances today that Democratic Senators will 
work with Republicans. We always have, and we are prepared to do so 
again this year. We want to go to work. We want to do so in a 
bipartisan fashion. We believe the American people expect and deserve 
as much. I look forward, Mr. President, to a productive year.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to make a parliamentary 
inquiry. What is the parliamentary situation as relates to time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 hour and 40 minutes under the 
control of the majority leader. Senators may speak for up to 10 minutes 
within that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary procedure, 1 hour 
and 20 minutes used by the majority leader?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 1 hour and 20 minutes under the 
control of the majority leader, and 10 minutes. The Senator from West 
Virginia may speak for up to 20 minutes within that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hatfield pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 17 
and S. 18 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________