[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S707-S727]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


             vote on amendment no. 8 to amendment     no. 4

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
vote on amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. McConnell of Kentucky to 
amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Ford of Kentucky.
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  So the amendment (No. 8) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the situation is that we are now on the 
Ford amendment, as amended by the McConnell amendment. Then we have, I 
believe, four other amendments that can be voted on immediately, if the 
authors of those amendments are done with their discussion, and I hope 
the authors of those amendments are done with discussion.
  I would like to ask the Democratic manager if we can move forward 
then on the Ford amendment for adoption of the amendment by voice vote. 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Ford amendment, 
and I would ask that we go to the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the pending business is the Wellstone 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Ford amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside 
the Ford amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S708]]




                            AMENDMENT NO. 9

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, now the pending amendment is the Wellstone 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do not want to get into a quarrel with my 
good friend from Minnesota.
  I indicated on the Senate floor that there will be gift ban 
legislation, as well as lobbying reform legislation. I do not know 
precisely the date. I would hope that the majority leader, in effect, 
gives his word to our colleagues; or the minority leader gives his word 
to our colleagues on this side of the aisle, and that they would accept 
that in good faith.
  I just think that this sense-of-the-Senate amendment does not add 
anything. We believe there should be gift ban legislation. We may want 
to make some changes. We are in the process of looking at lobbying 
reform, gift ban. I would hope that my colleague from Minnesota would 
not press the amendment. If he insists, I would have no alternative but 
to move to table the amendment. I indicated last week, and I think the 
Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, indicated we will be doing 
perhaps not precisely what the Senator from Minnesota may wish, but if 
not, he can amend it when it comes to the floor. I wish he would at 
least express enough confidence in us in the first week that we do keep 
our word.
  If I fail to do that, I certainly would not quarrel with coming back 
again with another amendment. I do not see any real purpose in pursuing 
this. In the interest of time, if the Senator persists in the 
amendment, I move to table and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether I could just respond 
for a brief moment to the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I withhold my request.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. President, first of all, I very much appreciate what the majority 
leader said. This morning I did make it clear that I knew the majority 
leader had made a commitment to bringing this up and talked about May 
31 being the original date that we wanted this to be effective.
  I take the majority leader's word very seriously. I think he is a 
leader of his word. Second of all, I know that the majority leader had 
said last week that there would be some additional work that might be 
done. This does not spell out the specifics of what the comprehensive 
gift ban legislation would be, but it says we should consider it no 
later than May 31.
  I want to make it clear that I have no quarrel with the majority 
leader whatever. This amendment is not about that. What this amendment 
is, is an amendment to put the Senate on record. Since I have been 
working on this for several years I just thought it would be important 
for the Senate to be on record essentially confirming what the majority 
leader has said. That way I know as a Senator that we will all be 
behind what the majority leader has already proposed.
  I would like to have in that spirit, not in a personal quarrel 
whatever, a vote on this, and I would hope that the majority leader 
would support me. I think we are all in agreement. It just puts the 
Senate on record behind what the majority leader has already 
recommended.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota.
  Again, it is our intent to try to move as quickly as we can. I am not 
certain about any date. I am not certain it will be May 31. It could be 
before, maybe after May 31. It does seem to me that we should be given 
that opportunity. If we do not produce something around May 31, 
obviously, the Senator from Minnesota and a number of others, some on 
this side, would be offering maybe the same amendment.
  In view of the fact that we have not had any hearings on it this 
year, we have new Members of the Senate, I think they will all support 
a gift ban.
  I might add, I would rather be given some latitude in setting the 
agenda and setting when we might schedule this for debate.
  Therefore, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia 
[Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 9) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, may we have order. I cannot hear, and I am 
in the front row.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
Ford amendment and then move to consideration of the Leahy amendment 
and hopefully to vote on it immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, could we have order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection to the request?
  Mr. LEAHY. What was the request? I did not hear the request, Mr. 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will make this very brief. I think most 
Members are in the Chamber, and I know they want to get to a vote. In 
20 years here, I can count on how they might vote.
  I would really urge Senators to think carefully about voting to 
table. This is basically saying that we are not going to allow 
ourselves to set up the kind of political litmus test that nobody in 
private business would be allowed to do. This does not stop any Senator 
from saying I do not want to hire somebody because I do not feel 
ideologically compatible with him or her.
  But what it is saying is when you go and just put your people into a 
general overall pool of available staff members you do not have to go 
down through the kind of things that asks you to rate everything from 
the American Civil Liberties Union and Common Cause to the National 
Rifle Association and

[[Page S709]]

United Nations, rate everybody from Al Gore to Bob Dole as the study 
committee's grading was. Can you imagine if somebody at IBM was saying 
before we even consider your application where do you stand with the 
Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association, or where do you stand 
with Planned Parenthood or with Right to Life? There would be a hue and 
cry.
  We should not do the same thing here. It is an outrageous mistake. 
But if we are going to apply the same laws to ourselves as is applied 
to everybody else, they should be so applied.
  I told my good friend from Iowa I would be brief. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ford 
amendment be set aside to provide time for this vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it may be that the Leahy amendment has a 
great deal of merit. Let me say again that the House passed this bill 
after 20 minutes of debate by a vote of 429 to zero. This is our fourth 
day on this same bill to cover Congress as we cover every other 
business in America. And I do not quarrel with that we have not raised 
any objection to any amendments or taken too much time. No cloture has 
been filed or anything of that kind. It may be that sometime later this 
year when we get around to congressional reform there would be an 
appropriate amendment.
  But I hope that my colleagues will join me in tabling the amendment 
at this point so we can finish this bill without amendments. This may 
be a good amendment. I am not going to pass judgment on it because I 
have great respect for the Senator from Vermont. But since I do not 
fully understand it and I am not certain how many others do, since we 
will have congressional reform legislation before us, I move to table 
the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Kansas to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Vermont.
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 20, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--20

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Murray
     Pell
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       

  So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 10

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ford 
amendment be once again set aside and that we proceed to vote on the 
Kerry amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be moving to table the Kerry 
amendment. Before I do so, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 
1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I discussed with Senator Kerry my support 
for his amendment. I expressed earlier my support for Senator Kerry's 
amendment. It is exactly similar to legislation that I proposed last 
year. It is legislation and very important reform that must be 
addressed by this body and addressed this year, in my view. I believe 
that the amendment will be tabled. If it is not brought up in a 
reasonable length of time, I will join in cosponsoring this legislation 
in the future with Senator Kerry.
  Accordingly, Mr. President, I move to table the Kerry amendment, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) to table the amendment of the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry). The yeas and nays have been 
ordered and the clerk will call the roll
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was anounced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 10) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, is the Ford amendment the pending business 
now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be 
temporarily set aside to permit Senator Bingaman to bring forth his 
amendment, which I believe is going to be agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. And the amendment is taking the place of the Levin 
amendment. Bingaman for Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S710]]




                            Amendment No. 12

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding adoption of 
 simplified and streamlined acquisition procedures for Senate offices 
   consistent with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994)

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and 
     Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 12.

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

       At the end of title V add the following:

     SEC. 508. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING ADOPTION OF SIMPLIFIED 
                   AND STREAMLINED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES FOR 
                   SENATE ACQUISITIONS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Committee on Rules 
     and Administration of the Senate should review the rules 
     applicable to purchases by Senate offices to determine 
     whether they are consistent with the acquisition 
     simplification and streamlining laws enacted in the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 104-355).

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment for myself 
and Senator Levin that I believe is acceptable to both sides. I thank 
the distinguished managers of the bill, Senator Grassley and Senator 
Glenn, and the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate 
Rules Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Ford, for this assistance 
with this amendment.
  Last year, Congress enacted a bipartisan bill to put an end to 
antiquated and expensive procurement rules that governed the way 
Federal agencies buy goods and services. The Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of 1994, spearheaded by the distinguished Senator from 
Ohio, Senator Glenn and the distinguished Senator from Delaware, 
Senator Roth, repealed or modified more than 225 outdated laws. The 
goal of the legislation was simplification, and much to the credit of 
Senators Roth and Glenn, it is being realized today.
  Already, dozens of Federal agencies are changing the way they do 
business. They are functioning like cost-conscious private businesses, 
getting rid of old rules that, more often than not, led to ``spending 
millions to save thousands and thousands to save hundreds.''
  In the Senate, our offices may not spend millions to save thousands, 
but I would bet that we often spend ``hundreds to save tens'' and 
``tens to save pennies.'' Take my office in Santa Fe, NM, for example. 
When my staff runs out of staples, how do they purchase refills? The 
logical, economical course of action would be to run over to 
Woolworths, only two blocks way. But under our interpretation of 
current Senate regulations, they cannot do that. Senate rules prohibit 
it. Instead, my New Mexico staff must call my office here in 
Washington; a member of my staff here must make a purchase from the 
Senate; then he or she must ship the staples to Santa Fe. The cost of a 
$1.50 box of staples just rose to at least $10.
  The same antiquated and expensive rules apply to purchases of paper, 
envelopes, pens, clocks, computers, and teleconferencing equipment--
virtually everything a small office needs to function day-to-day. I 
believe it is time to put an end this costly practice.
  S. 2, which is before us today, provides the ideal opportunity. 
Today, while we are taking action to make other laws applicable to the 
legislative branch, we should do the responsible, economical thing and 
make the cost-saving goal of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
applicable to the U.S. Senate.
  My amendment would help us accomplish this task in a short and 
straightforward manner. The amendment simply expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the Senate Rules Committee should review rules applicable 
to purchases by Senate offices to determine whether they are consistent 
with the acquisition simplification and streamlining laws enacted in 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
  I believe this amendment will help bring simplified, cost-effective 
purchasing procedures to all Senate offices. In the end, everyone from 
Senate staff to America's working families will benefit from the cost-
savings we can achieve. Again, I thank the distinguished managers of 
the bill, and the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
Senate Rules Committee for their assistance with this amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I compliment the Senator from New Mexico for his 
amendment. It is an amendment that is acceptable to us both from the 
standpoint of its substance and it will not jeopardize our bill as far 
as avoiding conference and all the other things we have been trying to 
do by not amending this bill with nongermane amendments.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from New Mexico. I 
know he has worked on the 800 panel as part of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, the work we did on that procurement bill. It was 
about 3 years in the making. I think that should be applied here. I 
think the procurement bill was an excellent bill, and its provisions 
can well be applied here. I am glad to accept it on our side.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I, too, compliment the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico for his amendment. As ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, I pledge to him that we will move forward to try to give him 
the kind of answers I think he wants and I support. So I pledge to him 
we will attempt to get this out to the Senator in a reasonable length 
of time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the Bingaman amendment.
  So the amendment (No. 12) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on the Ford amendment.


                  Amendment No. 13 to Amendment No. 4

(Purpose: To apply to the legislative branch the requirements regarding 
 use of frequent flier awards for official travel that are established 
          in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994)

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

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 13 to Ford amendment No. 4.

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

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       (d) Applicability to Legislative Branch.--
       (1) The requirements of section 6008 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (5 U.S.C. 5702 note) 
     shall apply to the Legislative branch, except that the 
     responsibilties of the Administrator of General Services 
     under such section shall be exercised as prescribed in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) The responsibilities of the Administrator of General 
     Services under section 6008(a) of the Federal Acquisition 
     Streamlining Act of 1994 shall be exercised, with respect to 
     the Senate, by the Committee on Rules and Administration, 
     with respect to the House of Representatives, by the 
     Committee on House Oversight, and, with respect to each 
     instrumentality of the Legislative branch other than the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, by the head of such 
     instrumentality. The responsibilities of the Administrator of 
     General Services under section 6008(c) of such Act shall be 
     exercised, with respect to each instrumentality of the 
     Legislative branch other than the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, by the head of such instrumentality.
       (e) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--The provisions of this 
     section that apply to the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate are enacted--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be

[[Page S711]]

     considered as part of the rules of such House, respectively, 
     and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent 
     that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of each House.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, my amendment would apply to the legislative 
branch the same principles on frequent flier programs that Congress 
adopted last year in section 6008 of the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of 1994.
  That procurement act was worked on for about 3 years here, as I 
mentioned just a few moments ago in referring to Senator Bingaman from 
New Mexico. Part of that bill provided that frequent flier miles would 
not accrue to the benefit of the individual in the executive branch but 
would come back to the Government for the Government's use. In other 
words, you could not have taxpayer-supported travel and then have a 
rebate apply for that individual.
  So the purpose of my amendment, like the purpose of the underlying 
Ford amendment, is to save taxpayer money.
  Now, the use of frequent traveler programs is to reduce the cost of 
official travel, not to accrue to the personal benefit of somebody.
  Last year's legislation on this subject contained three key 
provisions. First, guidelines must be issued to ensure that Federal 
agencies promote and facilitate the use of frequent traveler programs 
for the purpose of realizing cost savings for official travel.
  Under my amendment, such guidelines would be issued for the Senate by 
the Senate Rules Committee, for the House of Representatives by the 
Committee on House Oversight, and for each congressional 
instrumentality by the head of the instrumentality.
  Second, last year's law states that frequent traveler awards accrued 
through official travel shall be used only for official travel, not 
personal travel. My amendment would clarify that this principle applies 
not only to the executive branch but also to the legislative branch of 
Government.
  Third, like last year's law, my amendment would require the head of 
each congressional instrumentality to report to Congress on efforts to 
promote the use of frequent traveler programs.
  The bill before the Senate, Mr. President, S. 2 is called the 
Congressional Accountability Act. Nothing could be a more critical part 
of congressional accountability than this amendment. It would require 
us to abide by the same principles that we have enacted last year in 
the act to ensure that Members and staff will not convert our frequent 
flier awards to personal use and will instead use these awards to 
reduce the costs to the taxpayer.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record 
at the end of my statement the provision in the procurement act of last 
year which I send to the desk. Section 6008 of the procurement bill of 
last year, entitled ``Cost Savings for Official Travel'' is a short 
section. It describes exactly how the administration, the executive 
branch will ``issue guidelines to ensure that agencies promote, 
encourage, and facilitate the use of frequent traveler practice 
programs offered by airlines, hotels, and car rental vendors by Federal 
employees who engage in official air travel, for the purpose of 
realizing to the maximum extent practicable cost savings for official 
travel.''
  It is difficult for me how to see anyone can oppose that, but 
opposition we have had all during the consideration here in the 
Chamber. I am sorry to see that because I think this is something that 
needs to be done to restore confidence, particularly in the House of 
Representatives where they do not follow the same rules that we do in 
the Senate. I send that to the desk and ask that it be printed at the 
end of my statement.
  There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     SEC. 6008. COST SAVINGS FOR OFFICIAL TRAVEL.

       (a) Guidelines.--The Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration shall issue guidelines to ensure that agencies 
     promote, encourage, and facilitate the use of frequent 
     traveler programs offered by airlines, hotels, and car rental 
     vendors by Federal employees who engage in official air 
     travel, for the purpose of realizing to the maximum extent 
     practicable cost savings for official travel.
       (b) Requirement.--Any awards granted under such a frequent 
     traveler program accrued through official travel shall be 
     used only for official travel.
       (c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall report to 
     Congress on efforts to promote the use of frequent traveler 
     programs by Federal employees.

     SEC. 6009. PROMPT RESOLUTION OF AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS.

       Federal agencies shall resolve or take corrective action on 
     all Office of Inspector General audit report findings within 
     a maximum of six months after their issuance, or, in the case 
     of audits performed by non-Federal auditors, six months after 
     receipt of the report by the Federal Government.

  Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the first vote that we had today, and it 
was the first vote this afternoon, we voted 55 to 44 for the McConnell 
second-degree amendment to the Ford amendment.
  I suppose there are several reasons we voted that way, but the 
argument that was used very successfully in debate yesterday by Senator 
McConnell of Kentucky was comity between the House and Senate whereas 
through this legislation and this amendment we should not be as a body 
of the Senate making rules for the House of Representatives. They have 
the constitutional right and power to adopt their own rules. They 
generally do not attempt to tell the Senate how we should fulfill our 
constitutional responsibility in setting up the rules of the Senate. I 
do not find any fault with the goal that either Senator Ford or Senator 
Glenn are trying to accomplish through their respective amendments. The 
McConnell amendment has modified the Ford amendment so it just applies 
to the Senate.
  Even though there is a different approach by Senator Glenn, the end 
result is exactly the same; that if the Glenn amendment is adopted, 
even though it does not mention the House of Representatives, the 
practical impact is, for the Senate to tell the House of 
Representatives what they can do in their rulemaking on the subject of 
frequent flier miles.
  As I indicated, as a body, we decided earlier this afternoon, 55 to 
44, not to do that. I hope we will stand by the same decision we made 
earlier this afternoon and that we will defeat Senator Glenn's 
amendment. I think that for the benefit of the public the House of 
Representatives has made a determined effort to assure the public that 
they are going to make a decision on their frequent flier miles 
situation later on this year. We should defer to their judgment, as we 
would hope they would defer to our judgment and not tell us how to run 
the U.S. Senate.
  So I hope that as people come to vote on this amendment in a short 
period of time, they realize that this is a rerun of the McConnell 
substitute to the Ford Amendment and, likewise, this substitute should 
be defeated.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand the reasoning--I do not accept 
it--for defeating this amendment. We are not talking about a House rule 
or a Senate rule. We are talking about law. We will have in the law a 
restriction of the Senate and no restriction of the House.
  The Senate, some years ago, decided that when the taxpayers were 
paying your air fare and you were a frequent flier--and most of us 
are--and you accumulated those frequent flier miles, and that belonged 
to your office. As the rules say, it is Government money, but it 
applies to your office, so you could use those frequent flier miles to 
reduce the cost to your office and therefore reduce the cost to the 
taxpayer.
  In the House, they have allowed the Congressmen to use the frequent 
flier mileage for personal use. So they were receiving a personal perk 
at the expense of the taxpayer dollar. All we are saying here is that 
we ought to be treated alike, and that the House should not, by rule, 
as my distinguished colleague from Iowa has said, change. But it is not 
a matter of law, unless they put it into a piece of legislation. It 
will be statutory. So if you make a rule, you change a rule.

[[Page S712]]

  So what I think we need to do is to listen to Senator Glenn. As he 
says, let us see if we cannot, by the very fact of reducing the cost of 
our tickets to our district or to our State, because we would not 
receive the so-called frequent flier mileage--and then our tickets 
would be reduced and it would be the same. He is not asking that we do 
it. As I understand it, he is asking that we have a study and make a 
recommendation, and then the Rules Committee will make the rule that 
will apply, which would be statutory.
  And so, Mr. President, it is all right if you use the theory that the 
House does not tell us how to run our business and we should not tell 
them how to run theirs. But the House has told us how to run our 
business on more than one occasion. We are just coming out of the way 
we keep our books, because it was imposed upon us by the House. It was 
not done by the Senate, it was done by the House.
  If we are going to let this one slide and all those on the other side 
are going to be opposed to restricting the use of taxpayer dollars for 
personal perks, then I think the more things change around here, the 
more they stay the same. If those new Senators that come into this body 
after they ran their campaign on trying to say we are going to 
straighten the place out and we are going to try to take the 
Congressmen and Senators' hands out of your pocket, regulations off 
your back, and our hands out of your pocket, here is one glowing way 
you can say, ``I am keeping my campaign pledge'' or, ``No, I am not, I 
am going to let them go ahead and take this perk off the taxpayers.''
  So the streets of hell are paved with good intentions. What if they 
put it into a bill, a rules change, or make it statutory, and it is a 
bill that does not pass the Senate. They keep on building up these 
frequent flier miles and can use them personally. There are a lot of 
things.
  As the majority leader said--and I take him at his word--if this bill 
passes the Senate as it is--and apparently all the amendments to it are 
going to be tabled or defeated--then the House will accept this 
legislation without a conference, pass it, and send it to the President 
for signature. So we have missed a grand and glorious chance of doing 
what is right.
  If the House, as they say, is going to do it anyhow, why should they 
object? Why should they object to putting it in this bill that they are 
going to pass and send on to the President? I do not think it is very 
good cover saying that we want the House to make their own decision and 
the Senate to make their own, when over the years we have both made 
decisions that applied to each body. Some were far more significant 
than this, but has no more imagery, no more moral underpinning than 
this one amendment.
  So we are going to apply it to the Senate statutorily, and the House 
eventually will get around to a rules change, or maybe put it into a 
piece of legislation. So I have to say to you that my dad always told 
me, ``Son, never underestimate the insignificant.'' Never underestimate 
the insignificant. This is an insignificant, little amendment. But it 
says a volume. It says a volume. Are we going to stop the use of 
taxpayer money for personal use? No. We will for ourselves, but nobody 
else. And so if the House is going to do it, why not do it here?
  Mr. President, it is hard for me to understand. Just this week, or 
last week, we voted that we did not want to have lobbyist reform or 
gift ban proposals here. And those that were vehemently for lobbyist 
reform and gift bans came out and said, ``We do not want Democrats 
setting the agenda for us. We want to put in our own bill.'' If that is 
cover not to vote for lobbyist reform or gift ban, that is still a weak 
reed. So that is No. 2 this week. That is No. 2 that we have had to 
vote on. You have looked back, and never underestimate the 
insignificant. Pretty soon, the insignificant is going to be three, and 
it is going to be four, and it is going to be five. And we have just 
started. We are not 10 days old and already that pledge out there and 
beating of the chest and coming back here and saying what you are going 
to do--working all night on the House side--is going to be for naught.
  I am for this. I think it is the right thing to do. I was for it a 
long time ago. Unfunded mandates I offered to you 6 years ago at $50 
million, the same figures. Did I get any takers? No. Five years ago, 
did I get any takers? No. Now it is one of the big deals. Unfunded 
mandates. I have been a Governor, and I understand how this egg is 
never going to be put back together once we scramble it and give the 
States unfunded mandates. It goes on and on, and it is going to eat us 
all up, and we are going to be back here trying to reconsider that, 
because I have had to endure under what Congress does. We pass a bill 
here and the bureaucrats do not speak. They then legislate it.
  We are going to have a balanced budget amendment. That is going to 
pass, but then we, after it passes, will pass legislation to implement 
it. What is going to be an emergency? I think we are moving too fast 
and there ought to be some thought given to the fabric that we are 
weaving here that is going to be a tremendous problem down the pike.
  So we have had two votes, and there may be a third one before the day 
is over. There may be a fourth one. But let me remind my friends, never 
underestimate the insignificant. This is insignificant, and you are 
going to have to pay for it one of these days when you do not want to 
do what is right. I hope my colleagues will reconsider this. This is 
the right thing to do. It is not the wrong thing to do. The only excuse 
is that we want the House to set their own rules. And this is not a 
rule; this is statutory. When you put it into the statutes, then you 
have to take it out. A rule is a lot easier to change.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to reconsider their position and 
look at what Senator Glenn offered here. It makes a great deal of 
sense.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not accept it that this is all just a 
House matter for this reason: I, as a U.S. Senator from Ohio, have to 
vote on appropriations for the House. Every Senator here has to do 
that. I vote those appropriations now, knowing full well that part of 
their cost of transportation back and forth comes back in the form of 
frequent flier miles, and that does not come back to the Government; it 
does not inure to the Government or accrue to the Government's benefit, 
as in the Senate and in the executive branch. It comes back to the 
individuals. So we appropriate more money here to let the House have 
their freebies to take families on vacations, fly wherever on their use 
of frequent flier miles, bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars.
  I think we ought to remember around here, when all else fails, that a 
vote on just plain what is right or wrong is in order. The way they are 
doing it over there now is wrong. This is a smokescreen that it does 
not make a difference to the Senate. It does, because we have to 
appropriate the dollars to help them have their freebies. If I rose 
here and said I am putting in an amendment here that says I want 
freebies for everybody, not just the House, let us expand it and put 
the Senate back on the freebies, and the executive branch, and run 
several million dollars of additional expense through appropriations to 
accommodate all this so we can take our families everywhere the House 
is able to take theirs. People would think I was nuts, and they would 
be right.
  But yet we try to do the opposite and say we are trying to save 
taxpayers' money, and we get ridiculed and voted down repeatedly. So I 
do not mind bringing this up for another vote.
  We see rebates not only on the airlines with frequent flier miles, we 
see these things once in a while that if you stay 5 days or 4 days in a 
certain hotel, I saw advertised in New York, you get a free weekend--
Friday, Saturday--with you and your wife and family, whatever. So we 
have those rebates.
  We have some of the rental car companies where, if you rent so many 
days in a row, you get a freebie or two. Why should that not come back 
in cash? If we are getting back frequent flier miles and using them 
ourselves, why should we not say if Hertz gives a Government discount, 
why do I not pay the full fare and we want a kickback in cash? That 
would be a kickback we would never condone, and we should not.

[[Page S713]]

  So I think, when it comes down to it, it is just a matter to me of 
what is right and what is wrong. And the way the House is doing their 
business on this right now is just flatout wrong.
  Mr. President, I do not know whether anyone else wishes to speak, but 
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I inquire of the Senator from 
Iowa and the Senator from Ohio whether or not they intend to take a 
vote on this amendment right now. If not, I would like to go ahead with 
an amendment. I have been waiting on the floor for a number of hours. 
If so, I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent that after the vote, 
my amendment be then up on the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I might respond to my distinguished 
colleague from Minnesota that I am ready to vote right now. I do not 
think anybody else is prepared to speak. I am prepared to vote right 
now.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. May I just ask the Senator from Ohio a question when 
the Senator from Minnesota has completed his question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if it is OK with my colleagues--as the 
Senator from Iowa knows, I have been trying to move things along--I ask 
unanimous consent that, after the vote, I be able to then offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Hearing no 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if I may just ask the Senator from Ohio, 
as to this whole issue of frequent flier miles and all, I have 
difficulty understanding the disagreement that exists. As I understand 
it, you are talking about a public property here, which is these so-
called frequent flier miles that have been accumulated with taxpayers' 
dollars being converted to personal use. I always thought that was 
against the law to take public property and convert it to personal use.
  I do not understand why we are having to pass laws on this issue. I 
did not realize that it was just a question of which rule you wanted to 
adopt. I always thought it was against the law to take public property 
and convert it to private use.
  Am I missing something?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not think the Senator is missing 
anything. We are trying to correct that loophole in the law with this 
amendment and with the underlying amendment by the Senator from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ford]. This would close that loophole so the House could 
not misuse what I view, just as the Senator from New Mexico says, as 
public property.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] to table the amendment of the 
Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn]. The yeas and nays have been ordered and 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Rockefeller
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 13) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand that the unanimous-consent 
agreement was given to the Senator from Minnesota and that his 
amendment would be brought up right after this particular vote.
  It is my understanding now it will not be necessary to have a 
recorded vote on my amendment. The Senator from Minnesota is willing to 
allow us to proceed, provided he will be the next one up. If that is 
agreeable to the leadership, we will proceed in that manner.
  Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. FORD. I will be glad to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I indicated to the Senator from Minnesota 
that we have no desire to quickly move to table the amendment. We would 
like to do the nomination of Robert Rubin, if we could, this evening.
  We would like to accommodate both the Senator from Minnesota and the 
Secretary-to-be Rubin. So hopefully we can work it out and still be out 
of here by 7 o'clock.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
of Senator Wellstone be set aside and that the Ford amendment be 
considered by a voice vote or by unanimous consent, and at the end of 
that then we go back and recognize the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 4, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 4, the Ford amendment, as amended.
  The amendment (No. 4), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order of the Senate, the 
Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be pleased to yield to the 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, just to clarify and help people in 
scheduling, I believe there are two amendments left that might require 
votes--those of Senator Wellstone and Senator Lautenberg. I do not know 
how long it will take. Those are the only amendments left, just for the 
guidance of Members.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I offer the amendment, could I 
ask for order in the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order. The 
Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the majority 
leader for his willingness to work closely with us on the floor. I say 
to the majority leader that there are some other Senators who would 
like to speak that are with me, and I would like to get to those 
Senators right

[[Page S714]]

away. We will try to not take up many hours, but we consider this to be 
an important amendment, and we will try to do it within whatever 
timeframe the majority leader talked about.
   Mr. President, let me for my colleagues just briefly describe this 
amendment. Then there are several Senators that are with me, certainly 
the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, who is going to have to 
leave, and I would like him to open up with some of our remarks.
  This amendment is twofold. First of all, it reads:

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact 
     or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of 
     children who are hungry or homeless.

  I would like to repeat that, if I may, for the Chair and for my 
colleagues. The amendment reads as follows:

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact 
     or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of 
     children who are hungry or homeless.

  Mr. President, the second part of this amendment has to do with the 
duties of congressional committees. What this amendment says is that 
each committee, as it considers any bill that affects children, will 
have an accompanying report which will deal with the impact of that 
legislation on children.
  This is very consistent with some of the direction in which we are 
going in the U.S. Senate. If we are going to talk about the impact that 
legislation has on State governments or on county governments or on 
corporations or businesses, then surely, Mr. President, we can also 
talk about the impact that this legislation has on children within our 
country.
  I want to just give a few examples. Today, in Minnesota, there were 
about 150 people, many of them children, many of them Head Start 
mothers, I say to the Senator from Connecticut, a number of different 
organizations, and the Children's Defense Fund, looking to the year 
2002 and understanding what might very well happen in this country--
that is to say, that the cuts we make go the path of least resistance--
which spelled out what they are worried about.
  As they looked at some of the projected cuts, they talked about 
Minnesota 2002: 29,150 babies, preschoolers, and pregnant women would 
lose infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements; 31,350 
children would lose food stamps; 154,600 children would lose free or 
subsidized school lunch programs; 93,000 children would lose Medicaid 
coverage.
  Mr. President, I can go on, but the point I simply want to make 
before yielding the floor to Senator Dodd is I come from a State that 
has had a number of great Senators. I hope that if I work hard, I can 
maybe just be a little bit as good as Hubert Humphrey. Seventeen years 
ago, Hubert Humphrey said the test of a Government and the test of a 
society is the way we treat people in the dawn of life--children--the 
way we treat people in the twilight of their life--the elderly--and the 
way we treat people in the shadow of their lives--those that are 
struggling with an illness, those that are struggling with a 
disability, and those that are poor or those that are needy.
  I believe that this Contract With America takes us precisely in the 
opposite direction. Surely there is a way that we can continue with 
deficit reduction and not ride roughshod over children. Surely, we can 
go on record in the U.S. Senate today, making it clear that it is the 
sense of the Congress that we will not enact any legislation that will 
increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless. And surely 
today in this amendment, we can make it clear that we will do child 
impact of our legislation to make sure that whatever we do does not 
make more children homeless, does not make more children hungry; that 
whatever we do supports our future, which is to support children in 
this country.
  I have much more to say about this amendment. I hope that the U.S. 
Senate will go on record and support this amendment. But I would like 
to yield the floor to Senator Dodd from Connecticut, who has been such 
a leader in the U.S. Senate on children's issues.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first let me commend our colleague from Minnesota, 
with whom I have the pleasure and honor of serving with on the Labor 
and Human Resources Committee, and who has been a tireless advocate on 
behalf of children as a member of that committee. Let me again point 
out and restate what the Senator from Minnesota is attempting to do 
here.
  This is an amendment that merely says that for those who are arguably 
the most vulnerable in our society, those on whom we depend for the 
success and future of this Nation, that as we consider all of the 
financial implications of budgets and tax proposals, that we be ever so 
mindful of these children. They have no other choices and no other 
alternatives for their own success and survival than our willingness to 
appreciate how vulnerable they are and our willingness to be supportive 
of them.
  There are a staggering number of statistics that indicate the 
problems that younger Americans face in our society today. The child 
poverty rate fell throughout the 1960's, falling from approximately 26 
percent in 1960 to 13.8 percent in 1969. It is worthy to note that the 
rate began rising again, to more than 20 percent, where it is today. 
The trend lines are pointing in all the wrong directions. We are told 
that if the current trends continue, almost 28 percent of children in 
the United States will be living in poverty by the year 2010.
  Now, you do not need to be a Ph.D. in sociology to appreciate what 
the implications of that are for the generation coming along that have 
to be the best-educated, best-prepared generation this Nation has ever 
produced. We are going to be living in the most competitive global 
environment that the world has ever seen, and we need to do everything 
we possibly can to see to it that those younger Americans at least have 
the opportunity to be well prepared.
  Anyone will tell you as they look at these issues that a child who 
lacks the proper nutrition in the earliest years of their development, 
that is not getting the kind of care and start they need as they begin 
those lives, then the likelihood they are going to be productive 
citizens, good parents, independent people capable of taking care of 
themselves and contributing to our society diminishes dramatically.
  This amendment is not a Draconian amendment. It says that we should 
at least consider these matters. I am tremendously sympathetic and a 
supporter, I might add, of the unfunded mandate proposal. I think there 
is a lot of value in that, looking at the implications in our 
communities and in our States of the decisions we make.
  In fact, in this very Chamber a year ago I offered an amendment which 
required that we meet at least 30 percent of the obligation we promised 
20 years ago for special education needs in this country. We only do it 
to the tune of 7 percent today. And yet we made the commitment back in 
the 1970's we meet at least 40 percent of that obligation. It is a 
tremendous burden for our communities.
  That amendment failed. Well, there is some hope with the unfunded 
mandate approach, if we handle it properly, that we will be able to 
step in and make a contribution to lessen the burden at the local and 
State level. Can we not also say, at least for this one constituency, 
for the children of our country, that we are going to examine the 
implications of our decisions when it comes to basic things like 
education, like nutrition, like child support?
  It seems to me that is not a great deal to ask. If we are going to 
examine the implications on a business from a regulatory scheme that we 
adopt here, I think that is an appropriate and proper question to ask. 
It should not take a great deal to at least come up with some rough 
determination of what the implications are in a business. Is it too 
much to ask, with the children of this country, the children of this 
society, that we are going to consider as well what the implications 
are for you?
  I realize there is a wave afoot here and that we are all sort of in 
lockstep in terms of how people are approaching amendments. This does 
not mandate in a draconian or violent way at all. It just says that 
Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber as we begin this new Congress 
regardless of our ideology, regardless of our political persuasion, 
understand the price we will pay as a Nation in this society if we do 
not take into account what happens to the most vulnerable in our 
society.

[[Page S715]]

  So, Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota for proposing 
this idea. I hope that people at least look at it and consider it. I 
think it shows balance here, as we look at all these other issues, to 
certainly take into consideration what happens to America's children. 
Someday we are going to be held accountable as a generation as to what 
we did, not in the face of ignorance but in the face of awareness and 
knowledge of what was happening to a staggering number of our young 
people.
  The issue will be raised and the question asked: Well, you knew that. 
What did you do? Did you at least try to take into account their needs 
on the basic issues, on the basic issues of food and education, decent 
housing, decent support for these young families and these young 
children?
  I hope, with the adoption of this kind of an amendment we can say at 
least we tried to take that into account. There is no guarantee you are 
going to do it. It does not say you have to. It just says that you are 
going to be aware of it and you are going to listen to what the 
implications are for these younger people.
  So, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Wellstone amendment. I 
think it would speak well for this body in the opening days of January 
that for these children, particularly the children of these working 
families out there that are struggling every day to make ends meet, we 
are going to take into account their needs as well as in looking at the 
implications on governmental bodies and on businesses, children also, 
particularly the most vulnerable, will be considered as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I wish to yield the floor in a moment to the Senator 
from Arkansas.
  First of all, let me thank the Senator from Connecticut.
  As we speak about this amendment, I wish to try to talk some about 
the state of children within our country because I think that is part 
of the context of this amendment. Later on, I also want to talk about 
this budget debate and what has been taken off the table and why it is 
that so many people around the country are so frightened that in fact 
what we are about to do is really cut children, the most vulnerable 
citizens.
  But please understand, I say to my colleagues, that every 5 seconds 
in the United States of America a child drops out of school; every 30 
seconds a child is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a child is born 
to a woman who had no prenatal care; every 2 minutes a child is born 
severely underweight; every 4 minutes a child is arrested in an 
alcohol-related arrest; I think every 6 minutes a child is arrested in 
a drug-related arrest; every 2 hours a child is murdered in our 
country, and every 4 hours--this is devastating to me as a grandfather 
and father--a child takes his or her life.
  Mr. President, we cannot abandon children, and as a matter of fact I 
think the ultimate indictment is when we do so. Either we invest in 
children when they are young or we pay the price later.
  I will have some very specific figures on hunger of children in the 
United States of America a little later on as we go forward with this 
debate, and I will also have some statistics on the fastest growing 
homeless population, which are children. But I say to my colleagues the 
arithmetic of what we could very well be doing with this contract on 
America is very harsh; it is very mean spirited. We know what has been 
taken off the table. Military contractors are not asked to make cuts. 
Oil companies are not asked to make cuts. Coal companies are not asked 
to make cuts. A whole lot of other corporations are not asked to 
sacrifice at all. But we are going to cut nutrition programs for 
children. We are going to cut programs that provide children with some 
assistance so that they can have an opportunity.
  Now, some of my colleagues say, no, we are not going to do that. This 
is just simply trying to get people to panic. Senator Wellstone or 
Senator Bumpers or Senator Moseley-Braun or Senator Dodd are just 
exaggerating.
  Mr. President, we can put all of that concern to rest, and we can go 
on record tonight in the Senate that it is the sense of the Congress we 
should not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number 
of children who are hungry or homeless. We should be able to vote 
``yes'' for that.
  Mr. President, we can also adopt an amendment that says if we are 
going to call for impact statements on legislation that affects 
corporations and State governments and county governments, surely as we 
move forward we can call for company reports that issue impact 
statements as to how this affects children.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first of all, I commend the author of 
this amendment, my good friend, Senator Wellstone, for the 
thoughtfulness of his amendment. It may not be perfectly worded. 
Oftentimes, we understand the thrust of amendments that come up in the 
Chamber at times like this, even though they are not worded quite 
precisely. What we ought to do now is to vote for this amendment 
because we know what the intention is and what the thrust is. We can 
worry about the precise language in conference.
  Mr. President, shortly we are going to be taking up the unfunded 
mandates bill. I have very serious reservations about that bill. I do 
not want to debate it. I think the thrust of that bill is probably 
good. But I think it needs a lot of work.
  We have been voting today largely along party lines. Virtually every 
vote has been a motion to table voted for by the Republicans and, for 
the most part, voted against by Democrats. That is understandable. But 
if there is one amendment on this bill that Republicans and Democrats 
ought to join hands on it is this one.
  The Senator from Minnesota proposes that if we are going to pay the 
cities and the counties and the States for any obligation we put on 
them, surely we must also agree not to enact legislation, the effect of 
which is going to increase the number of homeless and poor children in 
this country. Surely, we can all agree nobody in this body wants that.
  Mr. President, everybody in this Chamber has his own view as to what 
happened on November 8--not a happy day for the people on this side of 
the aisle. Not to offend my colleagues on the other side, I could give 
a half dozen reasons that I think are very legitimate on why people 
voted against Democrats, not for Republicans.
  I do not believe there is a person in America who believes Government 
is too big, too unwieldy, and too expensive, due to food stamps for 
hungry people. I take the position that food stamps, aid for dependent 
children, maternal and child health, Medicaid, medical leave are 
valuable programs. Some people would have you believe that these 
programs were enacted by the Congress willy-nilly. They were not. They 
were debated. Committees considered those proposals thoughtfully.
  The Chamber of Commerce and Rotary Club back home did not want me to 
vote for a medical leave bill. But I happen to have spent 6 weeks with 
my daughter in Boston Children's Hospital, 2,000 miles from my home. 
Betty and I talk about it a lot. We were not wealthy, but what if we 
had been poor? We would not have been in Boston. I do not know. I might 
have robbed a bank to get my daughter there. We were so fortunate 
because all I had to do was go back home and open my law office, a one-
man, solo practice in a town of 1,500 people and start practicing law 
again. If I had been out on the assembly line, I would not have had a 
job to go home to. I daresay that while an awful lot of people in this 
country took strong exception to the family and medical leave bill, 
there are not 10 people in this Chamber who would undo this law right 
now.
  This country decided years ago we did not want a single one of our 
children to go hungry, and that is the reason we have food stamps. We 
decided we did not want a poor child to suffer for lack of medical 
attention. That is why we have Medicaid. We decided we did not want 
poor women having premature or disabled babies who require costly 
treatment and frequently do not

[[Page S716]]

survive. That is why we provide prenatal care. And we provide school 
lunches for children from poor families. Who here would undo that?
  I was president of the school board in my city for 12 years. That was 
the only thing I was ever elected to before I was elected Governor of 
my State. I must say, I ran for Governor to get off the school board. 
That is the worst job I ever had. I know how important school lunches 
are. The school board struggled with that and tried to raise a little 
money to improve the nutritional quality of those lunches.
  The American people have every right to be mad, upset, disenchanted, 
and to distrust Congress. It is trendy to do so. But I am telling you 
that the people of this country do not want us to undo the programs 
I've described. They do not want us giving the States block grants if 
the effect is to increase hunger among our children.
  In 1950, 27 percent of the people of this Nation over 65 years of age 
lived below the poverty line. Since then we have reduced the poverty 
rate among senior citizens to below 12 percent. We can pat ourselves on 
the back and say Social Security and Medicare did it. Today, you talk 
about Social Security and you talk about the third rail of politics. 
Nobody would dare suggest cutting Social Security and Medicare. Why? 
Because there are 40 million votes out there. You do not have to be a 
rocket scientist to figure that one out either.
  So how about our children? In 1950, the poverty rate among children 
was 14 percent. At the same time we were reducing poverty among our 
older citizens, the rate for children was growing dramatically to its 
current level of 23 percent. Senator Dodd says it will be 28 percent by 
the year 2010. Are we going to stand idly by and allow that figure to 
come true? If we do not adopt an amendment like this, we could very 
well see it. Everybody favors welfare reform. But when you get down to 
the specifics of it, it gets very tenuous indeed.
  Mr. President, I do not believe people want welfare reform in order 
to make cuts that would devastate the most vulnerable among us, namely 
our children. Here is a good opportunity for Republicans and Democrats 
to show the American people that when it gets to some basic values, we 
can indeed join hands and agree on something.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I never yielded 
the floor. Do I retain the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator cannot hold the 
floor after having yielded to the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I wonder whether the Senator will 
grant me a moment to thank the Senator from Arkansas. I just say to my 
colleague from Arkansas that I deeply appreciate his remarks, and I 
think, one more time, that this amendment is really an amendment that 
will attract and should attract bipartisan support. This is an 
extremely important message that we can convey today on the floor of 
the Senate. I thank the Chair.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I want to 
begin by congratulating and commending the Senator from Minnesota for 
this initiative. I think that it is a classical initiative, one that is 
certainly in keeping with the tradition of this body because really, 
stripped to its essentials, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment simply 
says that we in the Senate will do no harm. That is really, I think, 
our fundamental mandate and fundamental charge as Members of this great 
body.
  As we discuss the change--the revolution, some have called it--the 
reform that has come to the hill, I think we have to also be mindful, 
as we speculate about the political ramifications, of why it happened 
and what all is going on and what all this means. I think we have to be 
mindful of the realities. We must never lose sight of the realities--
what is going on, putting aside the slogans and the politicization of 
these issues, the reality. The fact is, as the Senator from Minnesota 
pointed out, the most vulnerable Americans are really at this point the 
most frightened, because the rhetoric seems to suggest that their 
realities will be ignored in this debate, and that they will not be 
factored in the decisionmaking as we rush headlong to begin to get some 
fiscal discipline to balance the budget and as we address issues having 
to do with the unfunded mandates, and the like.
  The statistics cited by the Senator from Minnesota paint a grim, but 
a very viable reality, and one that I think we must not lose sight of, 
and one certainly that underscores the need for his sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. His back stop, the back stop this resolution suggests is 
that we will do no harm to children, the most vulnerable people in our 
society.
  Mr. President, I am a supporter of the balanced budget amendment. In 
fact, my senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon proposed a 
balanced budget amendment--and I add parenthetically, since we have 
talked about politics, that a Democrat suggested the balanced budget 
amendment. When I campaigned for this office, I supported the balanced 
budget amendment. I am also a supporter, with Senators Glenn and 
Kempthorne, of the initiative having to do with unfunded mandates, 
coming out of State and local government. I, frankly, resist the notion 
that fiscal responsibility and responsibility in these areas is mean 
spirited or has to be mean spirited, or that it will put at risk the 
neediest people in our society and especially our children. I think we 
can have fiscal responsibility, and I think we can and must achieve a 
balanced budget. We must begin to address the whole issue of unfunded 
mandates and the burden that puts on State and local governments, but 
that we can do that in a way that elevates and does not diminish the 
status of children in our society. That is the bottom line of the 
resolution of the Senator from Minnesota.
  So I support fiscal responsibility, and I suppose these initiatives 
for the balanced budget and for the unfunded mandates proposition. I 
also am a strong supporter of this amendment. I believe they are 
logically consistent and that they are mutually compatible. I believe 
we can do both.
  I want to share with you for a moment--and I will not be much longer, 
Senator Simon. I kind of jotted down a few notes I wanted to share with 
my colleagues. I first ran for the Senate--and my colleagues on the 
entitlement commission have heard this story, but it is significant to 
me and to this debate. My decision to run for this office came in large 
part based on a conversation I had with my son who was then 15 years 
old. Matthew, after we discussed the great issues of our time, said to 
me, ``You know, Mom, your generation has left this world and country 
worse off than you found it.'' Well, that was like a dagger to the 
heart, the notion that my generation had not kept faith and done what 
we were supposed to do in our stewardship of the affairs of this 
country. So it was for that reason that I have supported efforts to get 
on an even keel, to put our fiscal House in order, to be responsible in 
terms of the allocation of responsibilities between State and local 
government.
  I believe that this issue is so important, and so important a 
statement for us to make who are supportive of fiscal responsibility, 
precisely because we are talking about what really comes down, and if 
you look at the numbers and the realities again as opposed to the 
emotional hot button, they tell us that we are talking about less than 
1 percent of our budget.
  We really are not talking about an awful lot of money, if you will, 
in the grand scheme of things. If we are talking about entitlement 
spending, discretionary spending, really, over all, the amount that is 
allocated and devoted to children and children's needs is not all that 
great.
  And so the question comes: Why can we not make a strong statement 
that we believe we are going to not only protect our children's future, 
but we are also going to protect our children's present; that the 
children now will not have to worry about what is going to happen as a 
result of our move to make all of these changes, all of these reforms, 
and all of the different initiatives that are pending before this new 
Congress.
  Mr. President, I want to close by saying that it is my concern for 
children that actually got me to stand up here

[[Page S717]]

and make a speech without notes and on behalf of the initiative of the 
Senator from Minnesota, because I believe it is absolutely imperative 
that we underscore our efforts for fiscal responsibility, underscore 
our efforts with regard to the pending legislation with the statement 
that we will do no harm to the neediest in our community, we will do no 
harm to our children, and that we are concerned about the realities 
that all the children of this great country face, and that we have the 
capacity and the ability and the foresight to state at this point that 
we will be mindful of their needs as we go forward with these different 
legislative initiatives.
  So I want to thank and commend the Senator from Minnesota for taking 
this initiative, for taking this step. I congratulate him for it. I 
certainly rise in strong support of his sense-of-the-Senate resolution.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take 30 seconds, because I know 
my colleague, the senior Senator from Illinois, is anxious to speak.
  I wish to thank the Senator from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun, for 
her remarks. I do not think she really needed to go with prepared 
remarks, because I think the Senator knows the issues so well and has 
such a commitment to them. I wanted to just simply thank the Senator 
for being here out on the floor.
  I wanted to emphasize one point, which is that we might want to call 
this amendment, if we had to title it, the ``Children's Right to Have 
Their Congress Know,'' because part of this amendment, again, says it 
is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not enact or adopt 
any legislation that will increase the number of children who are 
hungry or homeless. Surely, we can go on record on that.
  But the other part, I say to the Senator from Illinois, really is an 
important impact that we require, which we really should do in this 
rush to pass this agenda--and I want to talk more about the economics 
of this a little later on. We owe it to the children of this country--
do we not always want to have photo opportunities next to children?--we 
owe it to the children of this country that we do an analysis of the 
impact of the legislation that we pass out of committee. We should do 
that. That is the right thing to do. It is the policy thing to do, it 
is the justice thing to do, and it is certainly the right thing to do 
for the children in this country.
  So this is an amendment that is meant to be part of the law of the 
Nation. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  I thank the senior Senator for his patience.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois also for 
her comments. And since she mentioned her son Matthew, let me just add, 
he is a young man who is going to serve his community and country well 
in the future and Carol Moseley-Braun ought to be a very proud mother 
of that son.
  I think what Senator Wellstone has proposed here is important. Let me 
just give you one simple fact. Twenty-three percent of the children of 
this Nation live in poverty. No other industrial nation has anything 
like that figure; no 23 percent in Great Britain or Canada or France or 
Germany or Italy or Japan or Norway or Denmark or Sweden or the other 
countries you could mention. Why, why do 23 percent of the children in 
this country life in poverty?
  This is not an act of God. There is no divine intervention that says 
the children in Iowa and the children in Missouri and the children in 
Illinois ought to be living in poverty more than children in other 
countries. It is not the result of a divine intervention; it is not an 
act of God. It is a result of flawed policies.
  It starts in this room, my friends, in this Hall where we meet.
  Will the Wellstone amendment, if it is passed, result in changed 
policy? No one can know for sure. Even the distinguished Senator from 
Minnesota, for whom I have such a high regard, cannot know for sure 
whether this will have any significant result in moving us in the right 
direction. But it might.
  At least when we are talking about welfare reform, we are going to be 
looking at things. And I hear everybody wants welfare reform, including 
the people on welfare. But I think there are a lot of people who think 
we can do welfare reform on the cheap. There can be no real welfare 
reform without a jobs program. And you are going to hear me saying this 
over and over again.
  And I am pleased my colleague from Illinois mentioned the balanced 
budget amendment. It is very interesting. This year, we will now spend 
10 times as much on interest as we will on education. We will spend 
almost twice as much on interest as all the poverty programs put 
together.
  I ask the Presiding Officer, who is a distinguished former governor 
of Missouri, if the people of Missouri had a choice of spending less 
money on interest and more to help poor people, which would they 
prefer? You know the answer and I know the answer.
  But we have just kind of backed into this without thinking. The 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota says: Let us think about it. 
Let us pay attention. Let us at least look at what we are doing to our 
children.
  Again, I simply ask you: Why is the United States alone among the 
Western industrial nations in having 23 percent of its children in 
poverty? It grows out of this room, and in this room we can change that 
policy and give a brighter future to our children.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was not on the floor for most of the 
comments by the Senator from Minnesota regarding his proposed 
amendment. I have just read it. It would provide that it is the sense 
of the Congress that we should not enact legislation to increase the 
number of children who are hungry or homeless. And then, if I might 
direct a question to the Senator from Minnesota, the amendment also 
states that any bill or joint resolution coming before the Senate or 
the House should contain an analysis of the probable impact of the bill 
or resolution on children, including the impact on the number of 
children who are hungry or homeless.
  Let me just be sure I understand this amendment. What the Senator is 
saying in his amendment is, prior to any bill coming here, that there 
ought to be a report filed with it detailing, or outlining, I should 
say, its probable impact regarding whether it would increase the number 
of children who are either hungry or homeless or both.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. You know, a lot of times, we mandate reports concerning 
bills here as to their impact on the budget. We have that requirement.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The accompanying report that would come out of 
committee would actually deal with the impact on children, not just on 
hunger or just on homelessness, but its impact on children, more 
broadly defined.
  Mr. HARKIN. In other words, if the bill enhanced the well-being of 
children, that report would point that out, too?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. So it is not just an amendment dealing with measures that 
could be detrimental to children. It is also saying, how might a bill 
help them? So if a bill came up, and the question arose: How can we 
help children, make sure they have an adequate breakfast or a school 
lunch? That report could also detail that, too.
  I just wanted to make sure that was the case.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for 
making, I think, an important point, which is actually that this 
accompanying report is a valuable tool for us as we try to make the 
best possible policy, for two reasons. In the negative, if you will, it 
tells us if we are about to pass a piece of legislation that will in 
fact be harmful to children in America. But it also tells us in the 
positive, when we pass legislation, this is in fact the contribution of 
this legislation to the lives of children in America. That is the 
purpose.

[[Page S718]]


  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if I may reclaim my time on the floor, I 
thank the Senator and I compliment him for this amendment. I think it 
is appropriate that we have this amendment at the beginning of the 
year; that before we rush to judgment on a lot of bills and measures 
that will be coming before us that may sound nice, we ought to stop and 
think about what their impact will be on children in this country.
  Mr. President, I have here a study that was done by the Food Research 
and Action Center, [FRAC]. They talked about the Personal 
Responsibility Act, which is the legislation developed to implement the 
House Republican Contract With America. The report goes on to show this 
act contains a proposal to block grant current Federal nutrition 
programs, to remove their entitlement status and reduce their funding 
levels.
  FRAC's analysis shows that the Personal Responsibility Act's 
nutrition block grant program would result in a reduction of funding 
for food assistance of over $30 billion, about 14 percent, by fiscal 
year 2000, with a funding loss of $5 billion, 12.7 percent, in fiscal 
year 1996 alone. Further, under the Personal Responsibility Act's 
nutrition block grant, all but nine States would experience reductions 
in funding for food assistance in fiscal year 1996. Fifteen States, 
including Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, and Michigan, would lose 20 
percent or more of their funding in fiscal year 1996. Five States--
Texas, Louisiana, Washington, Delaware, and Maryland--and the District 
of Columbia would lose 30 percent or more of their food assistance 
funding in fiscal year 1996 if the so-called Personal Responsibility 
Act is passed. The FRAC analysis finds that if the so-called Personal 
Responsibility Act is passed, the nutrition block grants will have a 
devastating impact on individual programs such as the Food Stamp 
Program. In order to achieve savings in this program, States will have 
to reduce the number of participants by more than 6 million people, or 
cut benefits by 14 percent in the first year alone. Estimates indicate 
that if States choose to cut participation levels, over half of all 
States would have to cut their caseloads by 20 percent or more to meet 
the lower funding levels. Further, over a quarter of the States would 
have to reduce case loads by 30 percent or more, and 10 States would 
have to reduce food stamp case loads by more than 40 percent just to 
meet the cuts made in the block grant program.

  So, Mr. President, this is a pretty drastic approach. For those of us 
who make a decent income and eat in the Senate dining room every day, 
or have lobbyists take us to one of these really nice restaurants 
around the Hill for lunch, it may come as a surprise to know that there 
are hungry kids in America. There are a lot of children out there who 
do not get a good breakfast. They may get a good lunch, and it may be 
their only good meal of the day, because of the free and reduced price 
lunch program. And they go home and have an inadequate dinner that 
evening.
  There have been a number of studies that have shown in the recent 
past that we have a lot of hungry kids in America. Take the school 
breakfast program, one that I have been a strong proponent and advocate 
of for many years now.
  At the outset, let me just say to my friend from Minnesota that he 
comes from a strong heritage of advocates of a strong and sound 
nutrition program for our kids in America. I refer to his predecessor, 
Senator Hubert Humphrey. Also to former Senator Mondale, who fought 
long and hard for these nutrition programs, and was successful in 
getting them implemented.
  The School Lunch Program was enacted in 1946. It has probably done 
more to increase the productivity of America than any other single 
program we have adopted except perhaps the GI bill of rights. We sent 
our GI's to college. The school lunch program provided for millions of 
American kids then, as it does today, the only nutritionally sound and 
adequate meal that they have during the day.
  But then studies began to show that kids come to school in the 
morning and they have not had a breakfast, and they become disruptive 
and unruly. They cannot study, they cannot focus. So we started the 
School Breakfast Program. The school breakfast program right now is 
only available, I think, in fewer than half the Nation's schools that 
offer the lunch program. So it is not accessible to many children who 
need it. Many of the schools do not offer it.
  Studies have shown that children who participated in the school 
breakfast program were found to have significantly higher standardized 
achievement test scores than eligible nonparticipants. Children getting 
school breakfast also had significantly reduced absence and tardiness 
rates.
  Now, we know that from a number of studies. We also know from a 
number of studies that children who have adequate nutrition, who have a 
breakfast and a lunch program, who have the benefit of prenatal and 
early childhood nutrition, have higher IQ levels. Now, we have seen 
recent arguments that perhaps IQ levels are linked to ethnic 
background, or racial background, and all those kind of claims. That is 
being argued. But there is one thing that is clear.
  Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield for a procedural question? I do not 
want to interrupt the Senator's train of thought.
  We would like to see if we could set a time for a vote on a motion to 
table. I understand the Senator from Minnesota needs about 20 minutes. 
I do not know how much time the Senator from Iowa needs.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 10 minutes. I am on a roll. I just want to 
go through a couple of items here.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that I might have at least 2 or 3 
minutes before I move to table because it is something I am very 
interested in.
  I have been on the nutrition committees. I have gotten awards from 
FRAC, and I do not think this amendment belongs here. I want to make a 
brief record.
  So, maybe we could agree to vote at 6:10. That gives the Senator from 
Minnesota 20 minutes and the Senator from Iowa 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I just have a few more points.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we can vote at 6:10.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Knowing the Senator from Iowa well, I wonder if we 
could plan on 6:15.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at 6:15 we vote on 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOLE. I would just like to have 2 or 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader. 
The Senator has been a strong supporter of nutrition programs, and I 
can attest to that personally. I wish he would support this amendment. 
I am sure he will have something to say about that.
  Mr. President, as I was saying, one thing that is unassailable and 
incontrovertible is that kids who do not have an adequate diet do 
suffer lower IQ. A study reported in the Washington Post found that 
children suffering persistent poverty in their first 5 years of life 
have IQs 9 points lower at age 5 than children who did not experience 
poverty. And we all know that poverty is closely tied to inadequate 
diet, and inadequate food for kids in their early years.
  We know, for example, from a study done by GAO, the cost 
effectiveness of our WIC programs. Every dollar invested in WIC 
prenatal assistance saves anywhere from $1.92 to $4.21 in Medicaid 
costs. These are studies that have been done, and which document the 
value of sound nutrition for children.
  In another study, GAO estimated the initial investment of $296 
million in WIC prenatal assistance in 1990 would save over $1 billion 
in health and education expenditures over 18 years compared to the 
costs for children who did not get this assistance. So we know children 
in poverty, children who do not get an adequate diet, who do not get 
the school breakfast program, they have lower IQ's, they have lower 
attendance records at school, they are more disruptive, and they do not 
learn properly.
  We are going in the opposite direction with this so-called Personal 
Responsibility Act in terms of putting the nutrition programs into a 
block grant

[[Page S719]]

and then cutting it. If 5 States, Texas, Louisiana, Washington, 
Delaware, and Maryland, plus the District of Columbia, lose 30 percent 
of their food assistance next year, how will they make it up? Who will 
they cut? Well, they will cut the school breakfast program and other 
basic nutrition programs for children. We are already hearing about 
cutting the school lunch program and making kids pay more and that kind 
of thing. I will have more to say about that as the year progresses. 
Talk about a noncost-effective approach. I say this is a so-called 
Personal Responsibility Act because it is our responsibility here in 
Congress to make sure that kids are not denied adequate nutrition in 
our country. It has been a responsibility of the Federal Government 
since 1946 when we enacted the school lunch program and subsequently 
enacted school breakfast programs, WIC programs, and other nutrition 
programs, because we recognize a child who is poor and malnourished in 
Tennessee is not just a responsibility of that State. That child who 
grows up ill-educated with a lower IQ will not just be a burden on 
Tennessee but that child could move to Iowa or Illinois, Minnesota or 
California. And in any event, the loss of that child's potential is a 
loss for our entire Nation. So the nutrition of our children is really 
a problem for all of us as a Nation. We have looked upon it that way 
since the school lunch program was enacted in 1946.
  Personal responsibility? Yes, we have a responsibility in this 
Congress to make sure that all children have a good start in life. That 
means a good, solid WIC Program, prenatal programs, that we have a good 
breakfast program for our kids in school, and a school lunch program, 
and a food stamp program--which is in fact a major child nutrition 
program.
  Now, are there ways of streamlining and of cutting out waste, fraud 
and abuse? Sure there are. I think it has been about 17 years ago, as a 
Member of the other body, that this Senator advocated that we issue 
food stamp recipients an ID card along with food stamps so that they 
could not just go out and barter and sell food stamps on the streets 
for drugs or whatever else. I advocated that in 1977. I was told there 
was a problem with that idea and we could not do it then. We can do it 
today. If there are ways of streamlining the program, making people 
more accountable, making the programs more cost-effective, that is 
fine.
  Just to say that we will lump it all in a block grant, send it to the 
States and then cut it, I think is the height of foolishness. I think 
that would be more properly called the Personal Irresponsibility Act, 
if that is what we are about.
  So I congratulate the Senator from Minnesota. He is right on target.
  As I said, I know the majority leader has been a strong supporter of 
nutrition programs in the past. I would hope that he would not move to 
table this amendment. I wish we had accepted it in the spirit it was 
offered, that is to make sure that we do no harm to these children who 
need this kind of help and assistance.
  Really, it is not just the children we are talking about. I think it 
is in our own best interest to ensure that our children have adequate 
nutrition. We can look at it selfishly. We want a more productive 
America. We want to be able to compete in the world markets. We want to 
have a better-educated populace. Then we certainly want to make sure 
our kids have an adequate diet early on in life.
  I believe that is what the Senator from Minnesota is saying in his 
amendment. Let us take care in the legislation that comes before us 
that it does not impact adversely upon these kids. If we take away 
these feeding programs for our poor kids in America today, it is like 
eating our seed corn.
  I cannot think of a better analogy than that. These kids are our 
future, and we better have the personal responsibility to understand 
that the Federal Government has a role to play here and not abdicate 
that responsibility.
  So, again, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his amendment. I 
support it, and I certainly hope it will be adopted because I think it 
is in the best interest of this country.
  I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                            Amendment No. 14

   (Purpose: To improve legislative accountability for the impact of 
                        legislation on children)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Iowa. 
There is no Senator who knows these issues better. There is no Senator 
who is a stronger advocate for children. It is my honor to have him out 
on the floor speaking in behalf of this amendment.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me now send the amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 14.

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

       At the appropriate place, add the following new title:

               TITLE  --IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON CHILDREN

     SEC.  1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact 
     or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of 
     children who are hungry or homeless.

     SEC.  2. LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IMPACT ON CHILDREN.

       (a) Duties of Congressional Committees.--The report 
     accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a public 
     character reported by any committee of the Senate or of the 
     House of Representatives shall contain a detailed analysis of 
     the probable impact of the bill or resolution on children, 
     including the impact on the number of children who are hungry 
     or homeless.
       (b) Enforcement.--
       (1) Senate.--It shall not be in order for the Senate to 
     consider any bill or joint resolution described in subsection 
     (a) that is reported by any committee of the Senate if the 
     report of the committee on the bill or resolution does not 
     comply with the provisions of subsection (a) on the objection 
     of any Senator.
       (2) House of representatives.--It shall not be in order for 
     the House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that 
     waives the application of subsection (a) to a bill or joint 
     resolution described in subsection (a) that is reported by 
     any committee of the House of Representatives.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator just yield for about 2 
minutes without losing his right to the floor?
  I want to make one other point. There is so often the assertion some 
of these programs designed to attack poverty and hunger actually make 
the problems worse. For the record, I am looking here at figures 
showing that in 1960, the percent of American children below the age of 
18 living in poverty was 26.9 percent. By 1969, after the enactment of 
a number of the programs addressing child poverty, that percentage went 
down to 14 percent. It stayed down in the teens until 1983 when it went 
back up to 22.3 percent. The percentage stayed in the twenties and, at 
least as of the last year cited in this report, 1991, it was still at 
21.8 percent. These figures are all contained in a report titled Two 
Americas: Alternative Futures for Child Poverty in the United States, 
published by the Center on Hunger, Poverty, and Nutrition Policy at 
Tufts University, and I ask unanimous consent that appendix 1 of that 
report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the appendix was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   APPENDIX 1.--NUMBER AND PERCENT OF AMERICAN CHILDREN IN POVERTY ALL
                    CHILDREN BELOW AGE 18: 1960-1991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                         (1000's)     Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1960..........................................       17,634         26.9
1961..........................................       16,909         25.6
1962..........................................       16,963         25.0
1963..........................................       16,003         23.1
1964..........................................       16,051         23.0
1965..........................................       14,676         21.0
1966..........................................       12,389         17.6
1967..........................................       11,656         16.6
1968..........................................       10,954         15.6
1969..........................................        9,691         14.0
1970..........................................       10,440         15.1
1971..........................................       10,551         15.3
1972..........................................       10,284         15.1
1973..........................................        9,642         14.4
1974..........................................       10,156         15.4
1975..........................................       11,104         17.1
1976..........................................       10,273         16.0
1977..........................................       10,288         16.3
1978..........................................        9,931         15.9
1979..........................................       10,377         16.4
1980..........................................       11,543         18.3
1981..........................................       12,505         20.0
1982..........................................       13,647         21.9
1983..........................................       13,911         22.3
1984..........................................       13,420         21.5

[[Page S720]]

 
1985..........................................       13,010         20.7
1986..........................................       12,876         20.5
1987..........................................       12,843         20.3
1988..........................................       12,455         19.5
1989..........................................       12,590         19.6
1990..........................................       13,431         20.6
1991..........................................       14,341         21.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Statistical Abstracts of the U.S.:1989; Table No. 738, p. 454.
  U.S. Bureau of the Census, ``Current Population Reports,'' series P-
  60, No. 161, and earlier reports. Data for 1988 and 1989 are from
  ``Current Population Reports,'' Series P-60, No. 170-RD, and No. 169-
  RD, respectively. Data for 1991 are from ``current Population
  Reports,'' Series P-60, No. 181.


   Mr. HARKIN. So do not tell me these programs to help children do not 
have an effect. They have an effect and have a good effect of helping 
move kids out of poverty. I just wanted to make that point for the 
Record. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names 
of the following organizations that support this amendment be printed 
in the Record: The NAACP, Children's Defense Fund, Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights, Food Research and Action Center, the 
National Council of Churches, and the Religious Action Center of Reform 
Judaism. I ask that their names and the statements of these different 
organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

Statement of Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center 
                           of Reform Judiasm

       The ultimate judgment of a nation--of its values, its 
     honor, its basic decency--rests upon how it treats its 
     children, for those children are its future. A nation that 
     neglects its children, that allows children to go hungry or 
     homeless, that fails adequately to educate its children, is a 
     nation that short-changes its future. For this reason, the 
     Union of American Hebrew Congregations, representing 850 
     synagogues and 1.5 million Reform Jews, strongly supports the 
     proposed Sense of the Congress Resolution that Congress not 
     approve any legislation that will increase the number of 
     children who are homeless and hungry, and that requires a 
     child impact statement before Congress passes new 
     legislation.
       In the zeal to reform government and to change the way 
     Congress works, members of Congress must not forget how many 
     of the actions they are now considering--how many of the 
     bills they work to pass, budgets they wish to cut, programs 
     they seek to eliminate--affect American children, and, thus, 
     our future. America already has too many homeless children 
     huddled and shivering against winter's chill without adequate 
     shelter, too many children whose young stomachs know too well 
     the empty pain of hunger, too many inadequately educated 
     children whose bright minds daily grow dull. Those who would 
     cut budgets in ways that harm children will cite the 
     financial benefits of their cuts, will claim that by reducing 
     the national deficit they are securing our future. But by 
     reducing that deficit by penalizing children--by making the 
     weakest and the least among us bear the burden of reform--
     they only bleaken that future.
       However much we may all disagree over the best solutions to 
     the problems America confronts, on this, at least, let us 
     find common ground: that our children--more than all our 
     industries combined, more than all our raw materials, more 
     than all our science and ingenuity--our children are our most 
     valuable and precious resource, and we must treat them 
     accordingly. We must protect our children from an 
     indiscriminate budget ax as resolutely as we would protect 
     them from violence. We must scrutinize cuts in programs for 
     children as carefully as we scrutinize cuts in defense 
     spending, for even the mightiest military will be useless if 
     our nation's children have no hope. Our children are meant to 
     walk with us the road to peace and freedom and prosperity; we 
     dare not walk that road to a better tomorrow while leaving 
     them trapped in a bleak, a cruel, today.
       Each child's today is thousands of our tomorrows; nurture 
     these todays and you build those tomorrows; darken these 
     todays and you destroy those tomorrows.
       So we urge all senators, regardless of political leanings, 
     to support this amendment and to abide by its principles; to 
     keep the children of America always in their minds; and to 
     recognize that short-changing children for short term 
     financial gain is to make a faustian bargain that will cost 
     this nation dearly down the road.
       Our children reposit our dreams; we must not allow their 
     lives to be nightmares.
       The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism is the 
     Washington office of the Union of American Hebrew 
     Congregations and represents 1.5 million Reform Jews in 850 
     congregations throughout the United States and Canada.
                                  ____


   Statement of Mary Anderson Cooper, Associate Director, Washington 
      Office, National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

       We are pleased to support the efforts of the Senators who 
     have introduced legislation to require that Congress not 
     approve any legislation which will increase the number of 
     children who are hungry or homeless. This commitment to the 
     well-being of the nation's children is consistent with the 
     belief of the churches in our constituency that all people 
     have a right to food and shelter, and that we cannot relax 
     our vigilance when there is the prospect that children will 
     be allowed to go hungry and unprotected.
       We are grateful for the initiative being undertaken today, 
     and we urge the Congress to enact this measure assuring that 
     no action undertaken by the House or Senate will increase the 
     number of hungry and homeless children in this nation.
                                  ____


 Statement of Robert J. Fersh, President, Food Research & Action Center

       I am pleased to support the resolution that Senator 
     Wellstone will introduce today to protect children from 
     hunger and homelessness. This resolution is timely because 
     there now are serious proposals before Congress that could 
     add dramatically to the numbers of children who experience 
     hunger and homelessness in this country.
       FRAC is considered the leading national organization 
     advocating for more effective public policies to end hunger 
     in this country. Our analysis of H.R. 4, the Personal 
     Responsibility Act introduced in the House of 
     Representatives, leads us to believe that millions of 
     American children could lose essential school lunch, school 
     breakfast, WIC and food stamp benefits if the bill is 
     enacted.
       The most fundamental threat to our children's well-being is 
     the proposal to replace the highly effective and successful 
     nutrition programs we have today with a block grant at 
     sharply reduced funding. This will lead not only to immediate 
     pain and suffering, but virtually guarantees that the 
     responsiveness to hunger and undernutrition will diminish in 
     years ahead.
       We need a continuing Federal commitment to nutrition 
     programs that assures adequate funding and benefit levels. We 
     need programs that provide predictable funding levels and 
     assure that no matter where one lives in the United States, 
     there will be a safety net to prevent hunger.
       We cannot have a situation where school administrators 
     never know how much support they will receive and opt out of 
     school feeding programs because of inconsistent funding. We 
     cannot have a situation where needy people in a State cannot 
     get help when they lose their jobs because their State has 
     too many people in need and too little money to serve them.
       There are reforms and improvements that can be made to 
     improve the delivery of food assistance to vulnerable 
     citizens and to preserve the integrity of the programs.
       But a drive to save Federal dollars and reinvent government 
     roles should not have as a consequence more hungry and 
     homeless children. Before this rush to chaos is approved, 
     Congress should take a careful look at our Nation's nutrition 
     programs. They have a highly successful track record of 
     improving the nutritional status of our most vulnerable 
     citizens. Failure to preserve these programs will exact a 
     high monetary and social cost from our society.
       I offer our thanks to Senator Wellstone for introducing 
     this measure to assure that Congress has made a careful study 
     of the potential impact of its decisions on our most 
     vulnerable children.
                                  ____



                                      Children's Defense Fund,

                                                 January 10, 1995.
     Hon. Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Wellstone: I applaud your efforts to make sure 
     that the members of Congress are informed about the probable 
     consequences to children of legislation they are considering.
       Like you, I am very concerned that some of the actions the 
     Congress will be considering in the days ahead will, instead 
     of helping children, actually result in more children being 
     left behind--more hungry, more homeless, more without health 
     insurance, more who are poor. I believe that members of 
     Congress, if informed that an action they are contemplating 
     will actually hurt children, will not take such an action.
       Your amendment ensures that members of Congress have the 
     official information upon which to base that determination. 
     This is, effectively, ``a children's right to have their 
     Congresspeople know'' amendment. Too often, the needs of 
     children, who don't vote or speak for themselves, are 
     invisible in the legislative process. At the very least, 
     children should be able to expect that Senators and 
     Representatives know the impact of their decisions upon 
     children before they act.
       This is an amendment which every member of the Congress 
     should support. Thank you again for your leadership on this 
     very important issue for children.
           Sincerely yours,
                                            Marian Wright Edelman.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a 
statement of Women Academics Concerned About Welfare be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S721]]



          Statement of Women Academics Concerned About Welfare

       (This statement was written and signed in response to the 
     Administration welfare ``reform'' bill introduced in the 
     summer of 1994, Spurred by this proposal Republicans are now 
     championing much worse barbarisms. We should not let 
     ourselves be driven into supporting the bad in the hopes of 
     fending off the worse. We stand against policies which 
     deprive poor children and scapegoat poor mothers. A politics 
     of blaming the poor fosters a downward cycle of 
     impoverishment, stigmatization, and despair.--Linda Gordon, 
     Frances Fox Piven, Louise Trubek, January 1995)
       As women scholars who have studied welfare programs in the 
     United States and other democracies, and who share a concern 
     for poor women and children, we feel a responsibility to 
     speak out in opposition to the Clinton administration welfare 
     reform proposal.
       The most publicized feature of the proposal is a two-year 
     lifetime limit on cash assistance from AFDC. The limit shreds 
     precisely that portion of our social safety net on which poor 
     women and children rely. Yet the evidence shows that the 
     majority of recipients do not stay on ``welfare'' very long 
     at one time, but turn to AFDC when they are forced to by work 
     of family emergencies. Many women also turn to welfare to 
     escape from domestic violence. A two-year limit would destroy 
     that lifeline.
       The Bush administration began freely granting waivers 
     allowing the states to ``experiment with ``reforms,'' and the 
     Clinton administration is continuing this practice. Few of 
     these waivers concern true experiments or reforms. Instead, 
     reminiscent of the 19th century when welfare was a system of 
     disciplinary tutelage, they usually cut welfare grants which 
     are already everywhere below the poverty level. Some states 
     are reducing family benefits if a child is truant or if an 
     additional child is born. From the beginning of AFDC in 1935, 
     the federal government provided some protection against the 
     arbitrary ill-treatment of recipients by states and counties. 
     That protection should not be forfeited.
       The effort to present a ``revenue-neutral'' welfare reform 
     has resulted in the ludicrous prospect of severe cutbacks in 
     programs that serve some of the poor in order to pay for 
     programs that will ostensibly help others of the poor. 
     Clearly this makes little moral or programmatic sense.
       Just as troublesome as these programmatic initiatives is 
     the vilification of welfare recipients for lacking the values 
     of work and responsibility which has characterized the 
     Administration's talk about reform. This rhetoric undermines 
     respect for the hard and vital work that all women do as 
     parents. It is particularly egregious when direct against 
     poor single mothers who confront the triple burdens of 
     heading households, parenting, and eking out a livelihood. 
     Given the popular misimpression that welfare recipients are 
     overwhelmingly minority women, this pillorying of poor women 
     also contributes to racist stereotypes.
       While women have always been consigned to low wage jobs, 
     the situation of working women trying to support children has 
     worsened dramatically in the last two decades as wage levels 
     plummeted. The Administration proposal is silent about that 
     problem.
       Real welfare reform should be directed to ending poverty, 
     not welfare. We should strive for widely available day care, 
     medical insurance, and education, and for improvements in 
     working conditions and wages. At the same time we should 
     preserve the programs of social support--variously called 
     social security or welfare--that have been vital to the 
     safety, health and morale of millions of women, men, and 
     children in the U.S.


             WOMEN ACADEMICS CONCERNED ABOUT WELFARE REFORM

       Emily K. Abel, UCLA; Mimi Abramovitz, CUNY; Martha 
     Ackelsberg, Smith; Mona Acker, U Regina; Julia Adams, U Mich; 
     Randy Albelda, U Mass Boston; Nedda C. Allbray, CUNY; Rebecca 
     Alpert, Temple; Christa Altenstetter, CUNY; Ann Rosegrant 
     Alvarez, Wayne State; Nancy Amidei, U Wash; Teresa Amott, 
     Bucknell U; Susan Amussen, Union Institute; Margaret 
     Anderson, U Delaware; Elizabeth S. Anderson, U. Mich; Karen 
     Anderson, U Arizona; Karin J. Anderson, New School; Melissa 
     Anderson; Molly Andrews, Temple; Fran Ansley, U Tenn.
       Rita Arditti, Union Institute; Clarissa Atkinson, Harvard; 
     Nina Auerbach, U of Penn; Dr. Harriet Baber, U San Diego; 
     Regina Bannan, Temple; Lois W. Banner, USC; Carol Barash, 
     Rutgers; Lucy Barber, Brown; Nancy Barnes, New School; Dana 
     Barron, U of Penn; Pauline B. Bart, U Illinois, Chicago; 
     Rosalyn Fraad Baxandall, SUNY; Gail Bederman, Notre Dame; 
     Leslie Bender, Syracuse; Trude Bennett, U North Carolina; 
     Betty Ann Bergland, U Wisconsin, River Falls; Barbara R. 
     Bergmann, American U; Sharon Berlin, U Chicago; Sally A. 
     Bermanzohn, CUNY; Elaine Bernard, Harvard; Beth Berne, Woods 
     Hole; Kim Blankenship, Yale.
       Marcia Bok, U Conn; Janet K. Boles, Marquette; Annette 
     Borchorst, Wellesley; Eileen Boris, Howard; Marti Bombyk, 
     Fordham; Judith R. Botwin, Woods Hole; Cynthia Bowman, 
     Northwestern; Ruth A. Brandwein, SUNY; Rachel Bratt; Winifred 
     Breines, Northeastern; Vicki Breitbart, Columbia U; Johanna 
     Brenner, Portland State; Stephanie Bressler, King's College; 
     Mary Bricker-Jenkins, Western Kentucky; Eleanor Brilliant, 
     Rutgers; Frances L. Brisbane, SUNY; Sherri Broder, U Mass, 
     Medford; Evelyn A. Brodkin, U Chicago; Mary Ann Bromley, 
     Rhode Island College; Elsa Barkley Brown, U Mich; Susan 
     Taylor Brown, Syracuse; Irene Browne, Emory U; Lisa D. Brush, 
     U Pittsburgh; Darcy Buerkle, Claremont U.
       Sandy Butler, U Maine; Joan Callahan, U Kentucky; Ann 
     Nichols-Casebolt, Virginia Commonwealth U; Susan Kerr 
     Chandler, U Nevada; Alta Charo, U Wisconsin; Wendy Chavkin, 
     Columbia; Roslyn H. Chernesky, Fordham; Norma Chinchilla, U 
     Cal, Long Beach; Nancy Churchill, U Conn; Mary Ann Clawson, 
     Wesleyan; Jewel P. Cobb, Cal State Fullerton; Dorothy Sue 
     Cobble, Rutgers; Lizabeth Ann Cohen, NYU; Miriam J. Cohen, 
     Vassar; Patty A. Coleman, U Maine; Blanche Wiesen Cook, CUNY; 
     Kimberly J. Cook, Miss State U; Mary Coombs, U Miami; Lynn B. 
     Cooper, Cal State Sacramento; Rhonda Copelon, CUNY; Nancy 
     Cott, Yale.
       Lois K. Cox, U Iowa; Kate Crehan, New School; Elizabeth 
     Crispo, CUNY; Faye Crosby, Smith; Barbara R. Cruikshank, U 
     Mass; Paisley Currah, CUNY; Deborah D'Amico, Consortium for 
     Worker Ed; Jo Darlington, U Colorado; Margery Davies, Tufts; 
     Jane Sherron De Hart, U Cal, Santa Barbara; Vasilikie Demos, 
     U Minn, Morris; Tracey Dewart, CUNY; Irene Diamond, U Oregon; 
     Bonnie Thornton Dill, U Maryland; Estelle Disch, U Mass, 
     Boston; Christine DiStefano, U Wash.
       Elizabeth Douvan, U Mich; Nancy E. Dowd, U Florida; Daine 
     M. Dujon, U Mass, Boston; Joan Levin Ecklein, U Mass, Boston; 
     Susan Eckstein, Boston U; Kathryn Edin, Rutgers; Rebecca 
     Edwards; Hester Eisenstein, SUNY; Margaret S. Elbow, Texas 
     Tech U; Leslie C. Eliason, U Wash; Irene Elkin, U Chicago; 
     Cynthia H. Enloe, MIT; Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, CUNY; Julia A. 
     Ericksen, Temple; Rebecca Faery, Harvard; Kathleen Coulborn 
     Faller, U Mich; Amy Farrell, Dickinson; Elizabeth Faue, Wayne 
     State U; Constance Faulkner, Western Wash U; Elizabeth 
     Fee, U Wisconsin; Susan Feiner; Shelley Feldman, Cornell; 
     Ruth Feldstein, Brown.
       Deb Figart, Eastern Mich U; Judith I Fiene, U Tenn; 
     Michelle Fine, CUNY; Deborah K. Fitzgerald, MIT; Maureen 
     Fitzgerald, U Arizona; Maureen A. Flanagan, Mich State; 
     Cornelia Butler Flora, Iowa State; Nancy Folbre, U Mass, 
     Amherst; Joyce Clark Follet, U Wisconsin; Alice Fothergill, U 
     Colorado; Ruth Frager, McMaster U; Nancy Fraser, 
     Northwestern; Sharon Freedberg, CUNY; Estelle Freedman, 
     Stanford; Sandra French, Indiana U SE; Judith Friedlander, 
     New School; Andrea Friedman, U Cal, Santa Cruz; Debra 
     Friedman, U Wash; Jennifer Frost, U Wisconsin; Fran Froelich, 
     U Mass, Boston; Ann Rubio Froines, U Mass, Boston.
       Rachel G. Fuchs, Arizona State; Marsha Garrison, Brooklyn 
     Law; Sarah Gehlert, U Chicago; Joyce Gelb, CUNY; Jane 
     Gerhard, Brown; Jill Gerson, CUNY; Judith Gerson, Rutgers; 
     Kathleen Gerson, NYU; Nancy Gewirtz, Rhode Island College; 
     Melissa R. Gilbert, Georgia State; Glenda E. Gilmore, Yale; 
     Lori Ginzberg, Penn State; Marilyn Gittell, CUNY; Naomi 
     Gitterman, Mercy; Gertrude S. Goldberg, Adelphi; Joanne 
     Goodwin, U Nevada, Las Vegas; Linda Gordon, U Wisconsin; 
     Deborah Gorham, Carleton; Janet Gornick, CUNY; Naomi 
     Gottlieb, U Wash; Peggotty Graham, Open U, UK; Margaret 
     Groarke, CUNY; Elna Green, Sweet Briar; Julie Greene, U 
     Colorado; Maxine Greene, Columbia; Rosalind Greenstein; Carol 
     Groneman, CUNY; Emma R. Gross, U Utah; Atina Grossman, 
     Columbia; Angela Gugliotta, Notre Dame; Lorraine Gutierrez, U 
     Wash; Madelyn Gutwirth, U Penn; Jacquelyn Hall, U Wisconsin; 
     Margaret Hallock, U Oregon.
       Evelynn M. Hammonds, MIT; Linda Shafer Hanbcock, U Oregon; 
     Julia E. Hanigsberg, Columbia; Donna Hardina, Cal State 
     Fresno; Ann Hartman, Smith/Fordham; Susan M. Hartmann, Ohio 
     State; Nancy Hartsock, U Wash; Sally Haslanger, U Mich; 
     Victoria Hattam, New School; Rosemary Haughton; Mary 
     Hawkesworth, U Louisville; Pam Hayden, La Salle; Sue Headlee, 
     American U; Alice Hearst, Smith; Lisa Heldke, Gustavus 
     Adolphus; Julia Henly, U Colorado; Barbara Herman, UCLA; 
     Helga Hernes, Oslo; Mary Jo Hetzel, Springfield College; 
     Nancy A. Hewitt, Duke; Barbara Heyns, NYU; Elizabeth 
     Higginbotham, U Memphis; Marianne Hirsch, Dartmouth; Joan 
     Hoffman, CUNY; Emily P. Hoffman, Western Michigan U; June 
     Hopkins; Nancy R. Hooyman, U Wash; Ruth Hubbard, Harvard; 
     Nancy A. Humphreys, U Conn; Irene Hurst, U Cal; Cheryl Hyde, 
     Boston U; Sandy Ingraham, U Oklahoma; Katherine Irwin, U 
     Colorado.
       Joan Iversen, SUNY; Jean E. Jackson, MIT; Lynn Jacobsson, 
     Cal State Fresno; Leanne Jaffe, New School; Dolores 
     Janiewski, Victoria U; Toby Jayaratne, U Mich; Marty Jessup, 
     U Cal San Francisco; Carole Joffe, U Cal Davis; Harriette 
     Johnson, U Conn; Katherine D. Johnson; Jacqueline Jones, 
     Brandeis; Jill B. Jones, U Tenn Knoxville; Catheleen Jordan, 
     U Texas, Arlington; June Jordan, U Cal Berkeley; Barbara H. 
     R. Joseph, SUNY; Peggy Kahn, U Mich, Flint; Hilda Kahne, 
     Brandeis; Nancy Kaiser, U Wisconsin; Sheila B. Kamerman, 
     Columbia; Carol Kaplan, Fordham; Temma Kaplan, SUNY; Kathie 
     Friedman Kasaba, U Wash, Tacoma.
       Barbara Kasper, SUNY; Joyce Rothchild, Virginia Tec; 
     Barbara Katz Rothman, CUNY; Lily Kay, MIT; Alice B. Kehoe, 
     Marquette; Evelyn Fox Keller, MIT; Karol Kelley, Texas Tech; 
     Mary Kelley, Dartmouth; Susan M. Kellogg, U Houston; Marie 
     Kennedy, U Mass, Boston; Linda K. Kerber, U Iowa; Alice

[[Page S722]]

     Kessler-Harris, Rutgers; Cynthia Harrison; Mary C. King, 
     Portland State; Eva Kittay, SUNY; Janet E. Kodras, Florida 
     State; Rosa Perez-Koenig, Fordham; Judy Kopp, U Wash; 
     Felicia Kornbluh, Princeton; Sherrie A. Kossoudji, U Mich; 
     Minna J. Kotkin, Brooklyn Law; Nancy J. Krieger, Kaiser 
     Foundation Research Inst; Joan Irene Krohn, New Mexico 
     Highlands U; Sarah Kuhn, U Mass, Lowell; Charlotte Kunkel, 
     U Colorado; Regina G. Kunzel, Williams College; Demie 
     Kurz, U Penn; Angel Kwolek-Folland, U Kansas; Marie 
     Laberge, U Wisconsin; Molly Ladd-Taylor, York.
       Joan Laird, Smith; Susan Lambert, Chicago; Gaynol Langs; 
     Jane Elizabeth Larsen, Northwestern; Magali Sarfatti Larson, 
     Temple; Rebecca Lash, Woods Hole; Barbara Laslett, U Minn; 
     Marcie Lazzari, Colorado State; Suzanne Leahy, U Colorado; 
     Judith W. Leavitt, U Wisconsin; Judith Lee, U Conn; Mary P. 
     Lefkarites, CUNY; Gerda Lerner, U Wisconsin; Margaret Anne 
     Levi, U Wash; Rhonda F. Levine, Colgate; Ellen Lewin, 
     Stanford; Edith A. Lewis, U Mich; Jinguay Liao, New School; 
     Eloise Limger, New School; Shirley Lindenbaum, CUNY; Karen T. 
     Litfin, U Wash; Margaret Little, U Manitoba; Sharon Long, 
     Urban Institute; Judith Lorber, CUNY; Shirley A. Lord, 
     Buffalo State College; Tracy Luff, Viterbo College; Melani 
     McAlister, Brown; Megan McClintock, U Wash.
       Martha McCluskey, Columbia; Elizabeth McCulloch; Eileen 
     McDonogh, Northeastern; Katie McDonough, New Mexico Highlands 
     U; Brenda McGowan, Columbia; Alisa McKay, Glasgow Caledonian 
     U; Vonnie McLoyd, U Mich; Sharon McQuaide, Fordham; Barbara 
     Machtinger, Bloomfield College; Colleen Mack-Canty, U Oregon; 
     Esther I. Madriz, CUNY; Betty Reid Mandell, Bridgewater 
     State; Jeanne Marecek, Swarthmore; Jane Mauldon, UC Berkeley; 
     Lynne Marks, U Victoria; Sylvia Marotta, George Wash U; Julie 
     Matthaei, Wellesley; Elaine Tyler May, U Minn; Margit Mayer, 
     Free U Berlin; Anne Mayhew, U Tenn, Knoxville; Paula Hooper 
     Mayhew, Marymount Manhattan; Mary Jo Maynes, U Minn; Margaret 
     L. Mead, Tufts; Carol H. Meyer, Columbia; Marcia K. Meyers, 
     Syracuse; Sonya A. Michel, U Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Ruth 
     Milkman, UCLA.
       Dorothy C. Miller, Wichita State; Susan Miller, U Cal 
     Davis; Leslie Miller-Bernal, Wells College; Linda G. Mills, 
     UCLA; Jenny Minier, U Wisconsin; Gwendolyn Mink, U Cal Santa 
     Cruz; Lorraine C. Minnite, CUNY; Beth Mintz, U Vermont; Joya 
     Misra, U Georgia; Renee Monson, U Wisconsin; Suzanne Morton, 
     McGill; Wynne Moskop, Saint Louis U; Elizabeth Mueller, New 
     School; Ann Marie Mumm, Rhode Island School of Social Work; 
     Robyn Muncy, U Maryland; Victoria Munoz, Wells College; June 
     Nash, CUNY; Nancy Naples, U Cal Irvine; Marysa Navarro, 
     Dartmouth; Anne Nelson, Woods Hole; Barbette Jo Neuberger, U 
     Illinois, Chicago; Esther Newton, SUNY; Mae Ngai, Consortium 
     for Worker Ed.
       Sue Nissman, MIT; Jill Norgren, CUNY; Catherine O'Leary, 
     New School; Clara Oleson, U Iowa; Stacey J. Oliker, U 
     Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Paulette Olson, Wright State; Laura 
     Oren, U Houston; Ann Orloff, U Wisconsin; Sherry Ortner, U 
     Mich; Susan Ostrander, Tufts; Martha Ozawa, Wash U, St. 
     Louis; Gul Ozyegin, Temple; Nell Painter, Princeton; Mary 
     Brown Parlee, MIT; Eve Passerini, U Colorado; Carole Pateman, 
     UCLA; Lisa Peattie, MIT; Rosa Maria Pegueros, U Rhode 
     Island; Donna Penn, Brown; Ruth Perry, MIT; Rosalind 
     Petchesky, CUNY; Jean Peterman, U Illinois, Chicago; 
     Barbara Pine, U Conn; Frances Fox Piven, CUNY; Uta Poiger, 
     Brown; Janet E. Poppendieck, CUNY; Christina Pratt, 
     Dominican College; Arline Prigoff, Cal State Sacramento; 
     Laura M. Purdy, Wells College.
       Lara E. Putnam, U Mich; Karen Pyke, USC; Mary Ann Quaranta, 
     Fordham; Rayna Rapp, New School; Sarah Raskin, Trinity; 
     Leslie J. Reagan, U Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Sherrill 
     Redmon, Smith College; Ellen Reese, UCLA; Pat Reeve, U Mass, 
     Boston; RoseAnn Renteria, U Colorado; Margery Resnick, MIT; 
     Catherine K. Riessman, Boston U; Alice Robbin, CUNY; Betty D. 
     Robinson, U Southern Maine; Jeanne B. Robinson, U Chicago; 
     Pamela A. Roby, U Cal Santa Cruz; Anna Rockhill, U Mich; Ruth 
     Roemer, UCLA; Beth Rose, Vanderbilt.
       Nancy E. Rose, Cal State San Bernardino; Sonya O. Rose, U 
     Mich; Ruth Rosen, U Cal Davis; Beth Spenciner Rosenthal, 
     CUNY; Joyce Rothschild, Virginia Polytechnic Institute; 
     Hiasaura Rubenstein, U Tenn; Sara L. Ruddick, New School; 
     Lois Rudnick, U Mass, Boston; Leila J. Rupp, The Ohio State; 
     Mary P. Ryan, UC Berkeley; St. Ann Convent, East Harlem; 
     Barbara J. Sabol; Susan Sandman, Wells College; Rosemary C. 
     Sarri, U Mich; Wendy Sarvasy, UC Berkeley; Saskia Sassen, 
     Columbia; Gwen Sayler, Wartburg Theological Seminary; Jane 
     Sharp, Kings College, London; Eunice Shatz, U Tenn, 
     Knoxville; Marilyn M. Schaub, Duquesne.
       Elizabeth M. Schneider, Brooklyn Law; Brooke G. Schoepf, 
     Woods Hole; Juliet Schor, Harvard; Barbara Schulman, Clark; 
     Leslie Schwalm, U Iowa; Dorie Seavey, Wellesley; Gay Seidman, 
     U Wisconsin; Carole Shammas, U Cal Riverside; Karen Sharma, 
     New School; Kristin A. Sheradin, U Rochester; Mary T. 
     Sheerin, Union Institute; Jessica Shubon, Brown; Barbara 
     Sicherman, Trinity; Ruth Sidel, CUNY; Deborah Siegel, Rhode 
     Island College; Helene Silverberg, U Cal Santa Barbara; 
     Louise Simmons, U Conn; Barbara Levy Simon, Columbia; Andrea 
     Y. Simpson, U Wash; Beverly R. Singer, Columbia; Louise 
     Skolnick, Adelphi; Carol Smith CUNY; Judith E. Smith, U Mass, 
     Boston; Susan L. Smith, U Alberta; Ann Snitow, New School; 
     Sue Sohng, U Wash; Renee Solomon, Columbia; Rickie Solinger; 
     Roberta Spalter-Roth, American U; Jane M. Spinak, Columbia; 
     Judith Stacey, U Cal Davis; Barbara Stark, U Tenn, Knoxville; 
     Rose Starr, CUNY.
       Anne A. Statham, U Wisconsin, Parkside; Catherine A. 
     Steele, Syracuse; Judith Stein, CUNY; Ronnie Steinberg, 
     Temple; Vicky Steinitz, U Mass, Boston; Susan Sterett, U 
     Denver; Joyce West Stevens, Boston U; Mary H. Stevenson, U 
     Mass, Boston; Landon R.Y. Storrs, U Wisconsin; Diana L. 
     Strassmann, Rice; Philippa Strum, CUNY; Jennifer Stucker, 
     Eastern Wash U; Amy Swerdlow, Sarah Lawrence; Meredith Tax, 
     PEN; Shelly Tenenbaum, Clark; Nancy M. Theriot, U Louisville; 
     Margaret Susan Thompson, Syracuse; Sharon M. Thompson; Barrie 
     Thorne, USC; Carolyn Tice, Ohio U; Kip Tierman, U Mass, 
     Boston; Roberta Till-Retz, U Iowa; Shirley Tillotson, 
     Dalhousie U; Louise A. Tilly, New School; Susan Traverso, U 
     Wisconsin; Joan Tronto, CUNY; Louise Trubek, U Wisconsin; 
     Sandra G. Turner, Fordham; Adrienne Valdez, U Hawaii, Manoa; 
     Deborah M. Valenze, Barnard.
       Dorothy Van Soest, Cahtolic U; Heidi Vickery, New School; 
     Kamala Visweswaran, New School; Lise Vogel, Denison; Nancy R. 
     Vosler, Wash U. St. Louis; Maureen Waller, Princeton; 
     Elaine M. Walsh, CUNY; Joanna K. Weinberg, U Cal San 
     Francisco; Helen Weingarten, U Mich; Marsha Weinraub, 
     Temple; Nancy Weiss, Syracuse; Beth Weitzman, NYU; Dorothy 
     E. Weitzman, Boston College; Carolyn Crosby Wells, 
     Marquette; Janice Wood Wetzel, Adelphi; Marianne H. 
     Whatley, U Wisconsin; Lora Wildenthal, Pitzer; Lucy A. 
     Williams, Northeastern; Rhonda M. Williams, U Maryland; 
     Ann Withorn, U Mass, Boston; Eleanor Wittrup, U Mass, 
     Lowell; L. Mun Wong, CUNY; Nancy A. Worcester, U 
     Wisconsin; Susan M. Yohn, Hofstra; Marilyn Young, NYU; 
     June Zaccone, Hofstra; Mary K. Zimmerman, U Kansas; Paz 
     Mendez-Bonita Zorita, Arizona State; Yvonne Zylan, NYU

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, one day in the life of American 
children, three children die from child abuse--this is the Children's 
Defense Fund report last year--nine murdered.
  One day in the life of American children, 13 children die from guns; 
27 children--a classroomful--die from poverty; 30 children are wounded 
by guns.
  One day in the life of American children, 63 babies die before they 
are 1 month old.
  One day in the life of American children, 101 babies die before their 
first birthday; 145 babies are born at very low birth weight; 202 
children are arrested for drug offenses; 307 children are arrested for 
crimes of violence; 340 children are arrested for drinking or drunken 
driving; 636 babies are born to women who had late or no prenatal care.
  One day in the life of American children, 801 babies are born at low 
birth weight; 1,234 children run away from home.
  One day in the life of American children, 2,868 children are born 
into poverty.
  One day in the life of American children, 7,945 children are reported 
abused or neglected.
  One day in the life of American children, 100,000 children are 
homeless.
  Mr. President, we had a rather amazing statement made by one of our 
colleagues in the House of Representatives that the reason there would 
be no precise figures on precise cuts before a balanced budget 
amendment is that Representatives and Senators, therefore, would not 
vote for that amendment. There is a reason for that.
  By the most conservative Congressional Budget Office estimate, if you 
put Social Security in parentheses, if you do not cut the Pentagon, and 
if you have to pay the interest on the debt in order to get to where we 
are supposed to get to by the year 2002, we have to cut $1.2 trillion.
  I say conservative estimate, because we are now in a bidding war to 
raise the military budget, the Pentagon budget, to the tune of maybe 
$50 billion over the next 5 years, and we are in a bidding war for more 
and more tax cuts. That is revenue lost. That just leaves certain areas 
of the budget where we can make the cuts. The arithmetic of this is 
very clear and it is very compelling.
  I do not present today on the floor of the Senate a sophisticated 
econometric model. There are all sorts of different variables to 
consider. But I will tell you this: On present course--and we must 
change that course--when you look at outlays 2002, in terms of where we 
are heading, and then you subtract Social Security, which will not be 
cut, you subtract the Pentagon budget with

[[Page S723]]

a given percentage of the overall budget, and you subtract interest on 
the debt and you look at a projected $319 billion deficit reduction 
target, that $319 billion is about one-third of what you have left to 
cut from.
  So, Mr. President, we could be talking about, roughly speaking, 32-
percent cuts. Maybe we will not have a 32-percent cut in veterans 
programs. Maybe we will not have a 32-percent cut in Medicare. In 
Minnesota, that would mean a cut of $1 billion just in my State alone 
in Medicare. Maybe it will be more in child nutrition programs. Maybe 
it will be more in other children's programs.
  I know that in Minnesota alone, by 2002 on present course, we can see 
$145 million taken out of the following essential food assistance 
programs. This is not precise, but this is the direction we are going 
in: Food stamps, aid to women, infants, and children, and nutrition 
programs for the elderly, and the School Lunch Program.
  I said it before and I am going to say it again. A Food Research and 
Action Council 1991 report, 5.5 million children under 12 years of age 
are hungry in the United States of America. U.S. Council of Mayors' 
status report on Hunger and Homelessness in American Cities 1994 
estimates 26 percent that were homeless. The increase of the 
population, 26 percent, I believe, of the homeless population were 
children. National Academy of Sciences, 100,000 children are homeless 
each day in our country.
  Mr. President, if we continue on the present course and say we are 
not going to cut the military contractors; no, we do not want to do 
that; they have a lot of power. Heaven forbid that we do anything about 
oil company subsidies or coal or gas or all sorts of other subsidies. 
Heaven forbid that as we think about how to contain health care costs, 
insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are part of the 
sacrifice. All that is off the table.
  Willie Sutton was asked, Why did you go rob the banks? He said, 
That's where the money was. In this Contract With America, we are going 
to make cuts that affect the most vulnerable among the citizens in our 
country, and they are children because they do not make the large 
contributions, they do not lobby every day, and they do not have the 
political power of some of these other interests.
  Mr. President, again, today in Minnesota, 100 to 150 citizens, many 
of them children, at a press conference, a number of the organizations, 
Children's Defense Fund and others that have worked with children and 
have such credibility for their work, were making predictions on where 
we are going to be in 2002 with this Contract With America as it is 
implemented: 29,150 babies, preschoolers and pregnant women would lose 
infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements; 31,000--actually, I 
think it is 51,500--children would lose food stamps; 154,600 children 
would lose free or subsidized school lunch programs.
  Mr. President, I suggest that every Senator take a look at his or her 
State and ask the question: What exactly is going to happen here? If we 
are going to cut these programs that affect children in the country, 
either it becomes a shell game and our States then have to pick up the 
cost through a sales tax or a property tax, or the food shelves go 
bare, we see a rise in hunger, we see a rise in homelessness, and we 
see a rise in poverty among children in this country.
  I said it once and I am going to say it again tonight before this 
vote: I come from a State, as the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin 
said, with a rich tradition of care and commitment for and to children. 
Senator Hubert Humphrey personified that better than any other Senator 
could.
  Senator Humphrey said the test of government and society is how we 
treat people in the dawn of life, and he meant the children; and in the 
twilight of life, and he meant the elderly; and in the shadow of their 
life, and he meant people struggling with an illness or struggling with 
a disability or those that were poor.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, one out of every four children in 
America are poor; one out of every two children of color are born into 
poverty today.
  Mr. President, I heard the majority leader say two things, one with 
which I agree and one with which I am in profound disagreement. The 
first thing he said was that he has a history of concern and a history 
of commitment when it comes to nutritional programs and children in 
America, and he is absolutely correct. For that I pay him my greatest 
respect.
  But, Mr. President, the second point that the majority leader made 
was that somehow the timing is not right, this is not the right time.
  Now, I am not today going to do an analysis of the number of 
amendments that have been brought to the floor on different bills which 
may or may not have been a part of those bills by some sort of test of 
germaneness or relevancy. Believe me you, there have been many brought 
to this floor, and certainly by now the current majority party.
  That is not my point. My point is that Senators bring amendments to 
the floor, just so that people who are watching this debate are clear, 
because of timing. If you think an amendment is important and you think 
that the timing of it is critical, that is when you do it.
  Now, before we rush headlong into legislation that is going to hurt 
children in this country, why is the time not right for the Senate to 
go on record that it is the sense of the Congress that Congress should 
not enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of 
children who are hungry or homeless? Why is not the time right for the 
Senate to go on record that with our committees, when we report bills 
out, there will be reports accompanying those bills which will spell 
out the impact of that legislation on children in America?
  Tomorrow and the next day the timing is not right, the majority 
leader says. Tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and I am not 
sure how many days afterwards we are going to be talking about unfunded 
mandates and we are going to be talking about precisely this; that when 
legislation comes out of committee there will be a cost-benefit 
analysis, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  Mr. President, if we can say that we ought to do an impact analysis 
of legislation on State governments and county governments and city 
governments and corporations or small businesses, can we not today at 
the beginning of the session before we get into this agenda and start 
passing legislation, especially legislation that is going to hurt 
children, pass a piece of legislation in the form of this amendment 
that says no, we are not going to do anything, we are not going to do 
anything that will increase the number of children who are hungry or 
homeless?
  Has it come to the point that the Senate is unwilling to go on record 
saying that? Is it not timely for us to say that today? I say to my 
colleagues in a nice way, I am sure that you listen to all your 
constituents. And since I am sure you do, you must realize that there 
are many people in this country who believe that we are about to go 
through some cuts that are going to hurt those citizens who are the 
most vulnerable in this country.
  Now, I have had colleagues disagree with me, and they have said you 
are sounding an alarm but not based upon any serious problem. Mr. 
President, all you have to do, for those who have said no, we are not 
going to do that, I would say why then do you not support this 
amendment?
  Mr. President, I have to say to the majority leader and my 
colleagues, I cannot believe that you are trying to make the argument 
that the timing is not right for this. Why is it not time for the 
Senate to make it clear we are not going to enact or adopt any 
legislation that will increase the number of children who are hungry or 
homeless? Why is it not time for us to make a commitment to children 
and make it clear that we will have a child impact statement which goes 
with legislation reported out of committee as to how that legislation 
will affect children?
  I say to my colleagues that if you vote against this today, you 
certainly are sending a message loud and clear. And what you are saying 
to people around this country is, yes, you all have reason to be 
fearful and you have reason to worry and you have reason for some 
indignation that we are about to make some cuts that are going to hurt 
the most vulnerable citizens in the United States of America, children, 
because we are unwilling to go on record otherwise.
  What do you mean the timing is not right today? When is the timing 
going

[[Page S724]]

to be right? When is the timing going to be right? And I say to my 
colleagues, yes--I say this to the Senator from Iowa, because I so 
appreciate his grassroots approach to politics--populism is alive in 
America. People are in an anti-status-quo mood, and people voted for 
change.
  But, Mr. President and my colleagues, there is a tremendous amount of 
goodness in the United States of America. People did not vote to cut 
nutrition programs for children. People did not vote for legislation 
that could increase the number of children who are hungry or the number 
of children who are homeless.
  I say to my colleagues, if you do not think there is some compassion 
in this Nation, and you do not think there is some sense of fairness in 
this Nation, and you do not think there is some sense of justice in 
this Nation, then you are profoundly wrong.
  I hope the majority leader does not come out here and move to table 
this amendment, which is all about congressional accountability. I want 
the Senate to go on record and be accountable that we will not enact or 
adopt any legislation that will increase the number of children who are 
hungry or homeless. But if the majority leader should come out and move 
to table, and we have a straight party-line vote, I sort of wonder when 
some of my colleagues--I know I have in the past not necessarily voted 
with leadership--are going to sort of vote exactly what they believe. I 
cannot believe there is not anybody on the majority side of the aisle 
who does not support this amendment on its merits.
  But if it is voted down, then, Mr. President, I wish to say to my 
colleagues tonight I will bring this amendment up in the Senate over 
and over again. It will be up on the unfunded mandates bill and it will 
be up on every piece of legislation, because I am going to hold my 
colleagues accountable on this.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The minority manager of 
the bill.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I compliment him for bringing 
this up.
  If people just look at the wording in this bill, it is not some wild-
eyed thing. It is not something that requires us to do a great deal 
more work than we are otherwise going to have to do.
  Let me read what the sense of the Congress is.

       It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not 
     enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number 
     of children who are hungry or homeless.

  Now, I cannot conceivably think that any Senator would take just the 
opposite view and say that it is the sense of the Congress that we 
should adopt legislation that would increase the number of children who 
are hungry or homeless, and it would be ludicrous to think anybody 
would do that. So why something of this nature could not be supported I 
do not know. We would not even consider the opposite and say we will 
adopt legislation that will increase the hungry or homeless. All this 
says is that Congress has to be careful and not do something 
inadvertently that will increase the number of children who are hungry 
or homeless.
  Now, the second part of it:

       Section 2. Accountability. Duties of Congressional 
     committees.

  Pretty simple really.

       A report accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a 
     public character reported by any committee of the Senate or 
     of the House of Representatives shall contain a detailed 
     analysis of the probable impact of the bill or resolution on 
     children, including the impact on the number of children who 
     are hungry or homeless.

  Now, I would say that with probably 90 percent or more of the 
legislation that goes through here, that requirement will mean 
practically no work at all for the committee. If you are on the Energy 
Committee or whatever other committee, it is going to be pretty simple 
to say no, there is no direct impact on hungry or homeless children.
  But if, for those committees that deal with things where there is an 
impact, then at that time it would seem to me that we had better be 
looking at it, because we certainly do not want to add to the problems 
we already have with the number of children who are hungry or homeless. 
The rest is simple. It says that you cannot consider a bill, the same 
thing for the House, and so on, and the rest is very simple.
  I think it would be difficult to vote against something that just 
says we will not adopt legislation that will increase the number of 
children who are hungry or homeless. I do not see this as adding a big 
burden to our committee activity around here at all. There will be very 
few committees. Where some legislation is passed, it would definitely 
have a negative impact on the number of children who are hungry or 
homeless.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the Senator from Minnesota, and I 
am glad to support him on this.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I do not know quite what this amendment 
does. Well, it does not do anything; that is what it does. I have been 
a member of the Nutrition Committee for years. I worked with Senator 
McGovern from South Dakota. We repealed the requirements of the food 
stamp law that require people to put up money, and things of that kind. 
It may have been a mistake. We thought we were doing the right thing. 
We worked a lot on the nutrition and school lunch programs and WIC 
programs. I do not know that we can pass laws here that say--I do not 
know who will count these people every day, or every week, or every 
month. We do not know, if the law is passed, what the economy is going 
to be. This all ought to be discussed when we have the budget before 
us.
  We are talking about dollars here, because there is no way we are 
going to be able to tell, if the law passes, whether somebody would be 
hungry in America or one more might be hungry. That is the import of 
this, even though it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It is not 
binding.
  We are trying to cover Congress here with all the laws we inflict on 
everybody else in America. We have had a dozen amendments that have 
nothing to do with that at all. The American people want us to be an 
example, not part of the problem. We will be an example if we cover 
ourselves with laws that we inflict on small businessmen and women in 
Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Vermont, Pennsylvania, or wherever it 
may be.
  The House did this in 20 minutes, as I said. This is our 4th day on 
this bill because of all of these extraneous amendments. I understand 
that this is an opportunity to offer a lot of amendments and make the 
Republicans look heartless and cold, and all this. This is not going to 
work. The American people want us to cover ourselves. Every day we wait 
is another day it is not going to happen. I will be just, I hope, as 
diligent as the Senator from Minnesota when it comes to children's 
programs or nutrition programs. For that reason, I will move to table 
the amendment.
  We want to finish this bill quickly. We have agreed that at 6:15, we 
could either vote up or down or on a motion in relation to the 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe

[[Page S725]]


     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 14) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the Congressional Accountability Act. This legislation is 
very much needed and I would like to commend Senator Grassley and the 
many others who have played a role in developing S. 2, for all the work 
they have done in assembling this bipartisan measure. I believe the 
support this bill has from both sides of the aisle is a testament to 
their work and to the desire of the American people to have the 
Congress live by the laws it creates.
  I have long stated my belief that a government which governs best is 
closest to the people. Conversely, a government which begins to drift, 
and separate itself from those for whom it works is likely to forget 
the needs and wants of its citizens. For far too long we have seen the 
Congress drift in such a direction. S. 2 will help correct this 
situation and put us back on course.
  Last spring, I joined several of my colleagues in Russia where we met 
with our legislative counterparts in the fledgling democracy. Do you 
know what two of the most prized documents in Russia are today? It is 
copies of the Constitution of the United States and the Federalist 
Papers.
  In Federalist 57, James Madison--the father of our Constitution--
warned that if the American people ``tolerate a law not obligatory on 
the legislature as well as on the people, the people will be prepared 
to tolerate anything but liberty.'' In essence, he was saying if the 
time comes when the people accept a legislature which does not live by 
the laws it passes, the people will have lost their freedom. The idea 
that the government shall not have rules which distinguishes it from 
the people, is the critical connection between the rulers and the 
ruled, and establishes a communion of understanding and sympathy.
  Well, Mr. President, is it any wonder why public opinion ratings of 
Congress are significantly low? The general public doesn't feel 
Congress is in touch with the issues which impact their daily lives. In 
living outside the limits of the same workplace laws it imposes on 
others, the Congress has lost touch.
  Whenever I visit with Idaho business owners and operators, their 
frustrations with Federal workplace regulations quickly enter into the 
conversation. In fact, one of my first acts as a Member of this body 
was to help a small company in Boise which had been fined due to the 
overzealous and misguided application of Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration regulations. I saw first-hand the problems small 
businesses face in trying to meet the demands of the Federal 
bureaucracy. I also came to better understand the frustration these 
same businessmen and women feel when they find Congress has 
conveniently exempted itself from those same rules.
  The Congressional Accountability Act will correct this. By providing 
congressional employees--approximately 39,000 of whom will be impacted 
by the legislation--with the same protections which exist in the 
private sector, Congress no longer will be allowed to set the rules for 
others without setting them for themselves as well. This will place us 
squarely on track to follow the form of government intended by the 
Founding Fathers and which later generations fought so hard to 
preserve. This is the first step toward once again giving us a 
government which is ``of the people, by the people, and for the 
people'' rather than one which is over the people, at the people, and 
in spite of the people.
  Some would argue that the estimated annual cost of the bill of 
between $4 and $5 million is reason enough to oppose this legislation. 
Yes, the additional cost of complying with the laws included in S. 2 is 
something we should keep in mind, but it is also something which should 
have been kept in mind when these laws were originally passed for the 
private sector. Either the expense of a law is too high for the public 
or private sector to justify enactment or it is not. We cannot, in good 
conscience, claim workplace laws are too expensive for the Congress 
while at the same time claiming they are sufficiently affordable for 
the Nation's business owners and entrepreneurs. It is my hope enactment 
of S. 2 will serve as an impetus for Members of Congress, in their own 
self-interest, to thoroughly examine the ramifications of any 
legislation we consider prior to passing it. In so doing, we will also 
gain a better understanding of what we are asking of others.
  Mr. President, we have before us an opportunity to show the people we 
serve just how serious we are about reforming Congress. In passing the 
Congressional Accountability Act we will take solid action to show the 
American people that we are a part of the Nation, not a separate entity 
which is above the law. We can, in one easy step, take a significant 
stride toward restoring public confidence in the legislative branch, 
opening the door to a more responsive and attentive government in the 
future.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this past year, I created a Small 
Business Advocacy Council in New Mexico. Its purpose was to advise me 
about the problems of small businesses and how, together, we might be 
able to resolve some of their critical concerns.
  This council held seven meetings in six locations throughout the 
State of New Mexico, with more than 400 small businesses participating. 
They vented their concerns, and most of their issues centered on what 
appeared to them to be: First, an adversarial relationship between the 
Federal Government and business; and second, the lack of accountability 
of regulatory agencies and their work with business.
  Underlying these two categories of problems, however, is the basic 
issue that we, in Congress, simply do not understand what is passed on 
to them in the way of laws and regulations.
  To the people in my State of New Mexico, it appears that Congress--no 
matter how well-intentioned--simply passes the laws and exempts itself 
from their application. The public certainly has had a right to ask us: 
Why? If these laws are important, if they provide protections for an 
employee, if they provide benefits for an employee, why doesn't 
Congress think they are equally important and applicable to itself and 
to its employees?
  Like any unfunded mandate, Congress passes along to others the 
responsibility of implementing the law; and, if the law is ignored or 
disobeyed, to pay the penalty.
  These rules, regulations, and laws are good enough for everyone else, 
but it appears that Congress, itself, is too good for them.
  The businesses in my State complain about the inefficiency, the loss 
of productivity, and the loss of revenue when they must implement 
hundreds of laws and regulations. They rightfully argue that if we 
subjected ourselves to the same requirements, we might understand more 
fully the implications of these mandates.
  They are correct. When we pass a law to extend family and medical 
leave, for example, it is not just about an employee's absence and 
redistributing the workload, it is also about creation of a specific 
and precise set of office bookkeeping programs and procedures.
  This does not mean that a sick leave policy is a superfluous one. 
However, few of us recognize the underlying management issues that must 
be instituted--that it takes people to manage these systems and that it 
takes funds to do so. We never think about it because we do not have to 
worry about implementing the laws or paying a penalty if we fail to 
act.
  Now, with passage of this bill, we are going to have an opportunity 
to assess the secondary effects of these laws. We,

[[Page S726]]

too, will be subject to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the 
Federal Labor Management Relations Act, the Worker Adjustment and 
Retraining Notification Act, and many others.
  We will now better understand what many of our constituents have been 
complaining about--not the basic social good of these laws--but, 
rather, what it takes to carry them out and the resulting impacts on 
productivity, time, and costs. I suggest we may find that we have been 
imposing laws that are often inconvenient, impractical, and costly. 
Most important, we will recognize that the ability to carry on our work 
with creativity and flexibility will be sorely tested, if not severely 
inhibited.
  We are going to be able to determine for ourselves if there are ways 
to bring about equitable conditions in the workplace while ensuring we 
do not impose unrealistic reporting responsibilities or inefficient 
methods of management. We will find out that we have been very 
fortunate, indeed, to occasionally sweep problems under the rug because 
we know there will be no enforcement of any penalty to pay for 
noncompliance. And, we will now understand the complaint that ``form 
over substance'' often becomes a priority for getting the job done.
  Like many other conditions in life, we have to first look at our own 
house before we make demands on others. This bill will now make that 
oversight much more understandable, and, frankly, more equitable. I 
believe that we will have more empathy for those who have extended 
their legitimate complaints to us. And, I believe that we will now have 
the opportunity to reassess whether we can make reasonable changes that 
serve the interests of the workplace and its employees while lessening 
the costs and day-to-day burdens on the employer.
  This measure is an important one. For many years the American public 
has asked us to ``do unto ourselves what we do unto others.'' Its time 
has come, and I am pleased to support this bill wholeheartedly.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for 
the Congressional Accountability Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. 
This bill is about a simple principle: What is good enough for the 
American people ought to be good enough for Congress. There should be 
no double standard for elected officials in Washington.
  The Congressional Accountability Act will begin to bring Congress 
under the jurisdiction of the laws it passes. Some of my colleagues who 
support this bill say that living under the laws we pass will 
discourage us from passing more laws because we will see how horrible 
they really are. I disagree with that view 100 percent.
  I support the Congressional Accountability Act because I want my 
employees to enjoy the full protection of the laws of the United States 
of America. Among other laws, this bill will make Congress subject to 
the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets minimum wages and work 
standards for our employees. This bill brings Congress under the 
jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which 
guarantees that our employees will not labor in unsafe conditions. It 
brings Congress under the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Acts, so our 
employees will have protection from job discrimination on the basis of 
race, religion, and sex, and it will give them legal protection from 
sexual harassment.
  This bill brings Congress under these laws and several others, 
including the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the 
Rehabilitation Act.
  Mr. President, congressional employees deserve better than to take 
their complaints of sexual harassment to congressionally-established 
bureaucracies. They deserve the right to press their complaints to the 
district court. This bill will give them that right.
  Mr. President, the laws covered in this bill are good laws and I am 
glad that my employees will enjoy their full protection. When we pass 
this bill, Congress will no longer be the last plantation. We will no 
longer live by a different set of rules than the rest of the country.
  While I support this bill strongly and will vote for its passage, I 
wish to take this opportunity to state my disappointment that several 
important reform measures were tabled by the Republican majority. In 
the past week, initiatives to restrict gifts to Members of Congress and 
to limit lobbyists' contributions to Federal candidates were defeated 
largely along party-line votes. Amendments to limit the personal use of 
campaign funds and to end the McCarthy-esque practice of subjecting 
congressional employees to political litmus tests also were defeated by 
our friends across the aisle. Each of these amendments would have 
strengthened this bill, and I am very disappointed they were dismissed 
so easily.
  Despite this reservation, I am pleased that we are finally acting on 
congressional accountability legislation. Last year, when this bill was 
stalled by endless debate, I said:

       The American people are demanding that Congress change the 
     way it does business. They want reform now--not next session 
     or next year. So let's move this bill forward and vote on it 
     before the end of the year.

  In my view, Mr. President, we are a few months late in acting on this 
important legislation, but there remains an urgent need to pass it. I 
urge my colleagues to respond to the American people's demands for 
change by passing this important bill.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I rise to voice my support for 
legislation that takes one more small step in reforming Congress. While 
words such as ``accountability,'' ``responsibility,'' and 
``restoration'' are used to describe almost every legislative proposal, 
S. 2 offers us the real opportunity to restore accountability.
  As you know, Mr. President, S. 2 will apply labor, civil rights, and 
workplace laws to Congress. I strongly believe that Congress should 
follow the laws it writes. Congressional coverage is a necessity. 
Congress is not above the laws that it passes for the rest of the 
Nation.
  Mr. President, this is not the first time congressional coverage 
legislation has been proposed. In the 103d Congress, I supported S. 
2071, which was sponsored by Senators Lieberman and Grassley. 
Unfortunately, the bill was blocked from floor consideration. In fact I 
have voted for similar congressional coverage on other occasions as 
well. In 1990 and 1992, during consideration of civil rights 
legislation, I supported extending many of these laws to Congress.
  I am deeply disappointed, however, that the amendment regarding gifts 
to Members of Congress was defeated in a partisan vote. The gift 
amendment was designed to treat Congress like the executive branch of 
government; to remove any suspicion that Members of Congress are 
receiving special favors for legislative activities. That reform 
amendment would have truly made Congress more accountable to the 
public. Many say that the November election was about a revolution and 
that the public has demanded that Congress change the way it does 
business. We had an opportunity to make such an important change, and I 
believe we let the public down. I hope we will revisit this issue again 
this year, and that we will find the courage to adopt real gift reform 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 2, and any amendments that will 
strengthen S. 2 to make it even more true to the concept of 
accountability. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2, the Congressional 
Accountability Act, which will require Congress to live by the same 
laws and regulations under which it requires businesses and individuals 
in the private sector to operate.
  S. 2 is the first in a series of bills the Republican-led 104th 
Congress will take up to respond to the mandate the citizens of this 
country sent to Congress last November. That mandate calls for Congress 
to take action to make this institution more accountable to the people 
and to produce a smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient 
government.
  Step one of this important mandate is S. 2, a bill to apply all the 
major labor, safety, and antidiscrimination laws to Congress. Making 
Congress live under the same laws it imposes on private sector 
businesses is simply a matter of fairness. Congress has exempted itself 
from these laws for over 50 years, but today, under new congressional 
leadership, this institution will no

[[Page S727]]

longer apply one very different standard to itself and one to business 
and individuals.
  Congressional employees will now have the same legal protections as 
employees in the private sector. Currently, congressional employees 
cannot bring suit in Federal district court. But, with passage of the 
Congressional Accountability Act congressional workers for the first 
time may bring a private action in Federal district court against 
Congress. Currently, House staff members have no rights of judicial 
review and Senate staffers can, after a lengthy internal process, take 
to the Federal circuit court of appeals complaints about decisions made 
by the Chamber's internal Office of Fair Employment Practices.
  As I traveled the State over the past year, from Yuma to Flagstaff to 
Cottonwood, the subject of congressional accountability evoked strong 
reactions from the citizens of Arizona. Their message was clear: 
Congress currently operates above the very laws it imposes on the 
people and that must change. Arizonans want their congressional 
Representatives and Senators accountable. They not only want, they 
demand passage of the Congressional Accountability Act.
  Grassroots support for congressional accountability certainly 
evolved, to some degree, out of a desire for fair treatment of the over 
23,000 workers on the congressional payroll. But, by and large, what I 
have heard from small business owners and, yes, workers across Arizona 
is that Congress passes well-intentioned safety, labor, et cetera laws 
but they are often unrealistic and irrational. Business owners and 
workers believe Congress should feel the burden of these laws and 
regulations just as businesses across America feel the burden.
  It is these regulations and laws that get in the way of business 
owners and workers carrying out their respective purposes and earning 
an honest living. For example, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration [OSHA] regulations require businesses to post employee 
injuries. A company faces a fine if a list is not posted, even if there 
have been no injuries. Businesses are also often required to fill out 
safety data sheets, which show how a company will handle various 
hazardous materials, for such simple substances as dishwashing liquid 
or even chalk. It is for violating these regulations that small 
businesses often face hefty fines from OSHA. Since Congress passed 
these laws and regulations, however, it should be subject to their 
implementation--to, for example, random OSHA site inspections that 
often result in unnecessary fines and burdensome paperwork. The 
Congressional Accountability Act will force Congress to adhere to the 
same regulations and pay the same fines, however unwise, as every other 
private business in America. Again, that is what is fair. And, that is 
what will give Members and Senators a better practical understanding of 
the laws and regulations it passes--in the end, I believe, it is this 
forced compliance and practical understanding of our Nation's civil 
rights, labor and safety laws that will result in the repeal or 
modification of the ones that are burdensome, ill-drafted, or 
unnecessary to ensuring the safety and labor rights of our Nation's 
workers.

  As John Motley of the National Federation of Independent Businesses 
stated so well in a recent letter to me

       When Congress exempts itself from burdensome laws, it sets 
     itself above the people it governs. A small business owner 
     who fails to comply with these laws must face the full weight 
     of the Federal Government. Congress will only understand the 
     effect of the laws they impose on America's entrepreneurs and 
     job creators if they are required to live under the very same 
     laws.

  Under S. 2, the 11 major safety and labor laws that are either 
completely or partially inapplicable now will apply to Congress. Those 
11 laws are the Federal Labor Standards Act of 1964, and VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the 
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, OSHA, the Federal Service Labor 
Management Relations Act, the Employee Protection Act, the Worker 
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the Veterans 
Reemployment Act.
  Congressional coverage will not be limited to those 11 laws. Under S. 
2, all future legislation must include a report to describe how it 
applies to Congress or to describe why it does not. Consideration of a 
bill on the House or Senate floor would not be permitted if the bill 
report lacked such a statement. When the Congress knows that it must 
adhere to the provisions of whatever future legislation it passes, it 
will more likely pass legislation respecting the rights of individuals 
and businesses.
  Mr. President, the Congressional Accountability Act will not only 
make the U.S. Congress a better employer, it will show the American 
people that we understand the unfairness of existing congressional 
exemptions. The old saying, ``Do as I say, not as I do,'' will no 
longer apply to this institution because Congress will be living 
according to the same laws as others.
  Passage of this bill completes an important first step up the ladder 
of change the American people have demanded. I am pleased to be a part 
of a national commitment to fundamentally changing the way business is 
conducted here in Washington, DC, and I urge my colleagues, without 
delay, to pass S. 2.

                          ____________________