[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S756-S760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2) to make certain laws applicable to the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] is recognized to offer an amendment, in which 
there will be 20 minutes under the control of the Senator from New 
Jersey and 5 minutes under the control of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Grassley].
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer.


                            Amendment No. 15
    (Purpose: To reduce the pay of Members of Congress by the same 
percentage as other spending is reduced in any sequester caused by the 
  failure of Congress to meet budget limitations on spending, or the 
                            budget deficit)

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 15.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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 appropriate place in the bill insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . REDUCTION OF PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN EVENT OF 
                   SEQUESTRATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 601(a) of the Legislation 
     Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking out ``as adjusted by 
     paragraph (2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``as adjusted 
     by paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) The annual rate of pay for each position described 
     under paragraph (1) shall be reduced (for the period 
     beginning on the effective date under subparagraph (B)(i)(I) 
     through the end of the fiscal year in which such adjustment 
     takes effect) by the percentage necessary to reduce the total 
     annual pay for such position by the uniform percentage 
     determined under--
       ``(i) section 251(a)(2) of the Balanced Budget Emergency 
     Deficit Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(a)(2)) in any fiscal year 
     in which there is a sequester under section 251 of such Act;
       ``(ii) section 252(c)(1)(C) of the Balanced Budget 
     Emergency Deficit Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(c)(1)(C)) in any 
     fiscal year in which there is a sequester under section 252 
     of such Act; and
       ``(iii) section 253(e) of the Balanced Budget Emergency 
     Deficit Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 903(e)) in any fiscal year in 
     which there is a sequester under section 253 of such Act.
       ``(B)(i)(I) An adjustment under subparagraph (A) shall take 
     effect on the first day of the first applicable pay period 
     beginning on or after the date on which an intervening 
     election of the Congress occurs following the sequester.
       ``(II) Effective on the first day of the first applicable 
     pay period beginning on or after October 1 of the fiscal year 
     following the fiscal year in which an adjustment to effect 
     under subclause (I), the rate of pay for each position 
     described under paragraph (1) shall be the rate of pay which 
     would be in effect if not for the provisions of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(ii) If more than one adjustment would take effect on the 
     same date in accordance with clause (i)(I), each applicable 
     percentage determined under subparagraph (A) (i), (ii), and 
     (iii) shall be added, and the resulting percentage shall be 
     used in making a single adjustment.''.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 
     of the House of Representatives may prescribe regulations to 
     carry out the provisions of this Act relating to the 
     applicable Members of Congress.
       [[Page S757]] (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this section.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment is fairly simple. It 
would include Members of Congress in actions that result from missing 
budget targets that have been set forth under the Budget Act. It would 
say that if we miss the targets specified and a sequester takes place, 
reductions in accounts across-the-board, or on a specific account, that 
we would also include Members' salaries; that we would therefore cut, 
on a like proportion basis, the salaries of Senators and 
Congresspersons if the Congress failed to achieve its budgetary targets 
of limits on Government spending.
  The amendment would eliminate a defect in current law that excludes 
congressional pay from across-the-board cuts or sequesters when 
spending limits are exceeded.
  Mr. President, the central purpose of the pending bill, the 
congressional responsibility bill, is to create the same standards for 
Members of Congress as those applying to other citizens. The bill says 
that if we are going to impose laws on ordinary Americans, we are going 
to have to live up to those laws we in the Congress, we in the Senate, 
the same laws as we ask our constituents to obey. That is an important 
principle, Mr. President, and it is why I strongly support the 
underlying bill.
  Unfortunately, the pending legislation does not put Congress and the 
public on even par, at least in one very important respect. In fact, 
one double standard in place would absolutely surprise the American 
people if they were more aware of it. And I will take a moment to 
explain.
  Under the Budget Act, if Congress exceeds certain limits on spending 
or fails to meet legally-established deficit targets, then the act may 
mandate automatic across-the-board spending cuts to assure that we 
maintain fiscal discipline. These across-the-board cuts are known as 
sequesters and they can apply to a very broad range of Federal programs 
and benefits.
  Let us make no mistake. If Congress overspends under the Budget Act, 
ordinary Americans get hurt in the process--veterans can lose benefits 
they earned while fighting for our country; senior citizens with health 
problems can lose services under Medicare; middle-class students can 
lose the opportunities that student loans afford; and citizens living 
constantly these days in fear can lose the protection of additional 
law-enforcement personnel.
  And yet, while ordinary Americans' programs are put on the chopping 
block, when their health, their security, and their educations are put 
at risk, guess who it is that gets off scot-free? That is right. 
Members of Congress. Their pay is protected, no matter what happens.
  Mr. President, there is something wrong with saying that, if Congress 
violates the Budget Act, benefits for ordinary citizens should be cut, 
veterans' services should be cut, senior citizens' Medicare should be 
cut, student loans should be cut; the unemployed job training should be 
cut, but congressional salaries, those are sacrosanct, not to be 
touched.
 It is not right. If the public knew more about it, they would perhaps 
  be even angrier than they already are.Mr. President, I have been 
bothered by this double standard for some time. In the last Congress, I 
introduced legislation to eliminate this double standard. I called it 
the Congressional Overspending Pay Accountability Act. It was designed 
to do what its name suggested: Hold Members of Congress accountable if 
they overspend and if they violate their own budget rules.
  This amendment is based generally on that earlier bill. I offer it 
today because the Congressional Accountability Act is the ideal vehicle 
for solving this problem. After all, this bill is about eliminating 
double standards. And the loophole that protects Members' salaries from 
spending cuts is the ultimate double standard. Unfortunately, in its 
current form, this bill does nothing about it unless this amendment is 
adopted.
  So the amendment is very simple. It says that if Congress overspends, 
the pay of each Member of Congress shall be reduced by the same amount 
as all other affected spending. For example, if we exceed discretionary 
spending targets and trigger a sequester of 5 percent, Member pay for 
that next year will be cut 5 percent, as well. If the sequester cuts 
other programs by 1 percent, then the pay of Members of Congress will 
be reduced by 1 percent. I think it is important that if a target is 
missed, the pain be distributed equally. When cuts are made in 
programs, opportunities for education or health care are reduced. I 
think, somehow or other, we in the United States Congress ought to feel 
it some way other than putting a pencil to the paper.
  We are recommending this amendment. I hope all of my colleagues will 
support it. I think it is a show of good faith. I think, otherwise, it 
smacks a little bit of hypocrisy to say we do not want our pay cuts, 
but we want everybody else's programs cut. I think it does not ring a 
very true signal for the American people. This amendment proposes to 
treat Members of Congress just like all other ordinary Americans who 
get hurt when the Budget Act mandates across-the-board cuts. I believe 
that is only fair.
  We have not heard a lot about sequesters lately, Mr. President. In 
the past, we have seen sequesters as high as 5 percent, such as the one 
that reduced the military budget by that amount in 1986. Recently, 
Congress has complied with the Budget Act and has made a lot of tough 
choices. The threat of sequester has now increased substantially. Many 
in this town are intent on both increasing military spending and 
providing huge tax breaks to the wealthy at the same time we have heard 
promises of huge cuts in total Government spending. Apart from a few 
small symbolic programs proposed for elimination, we have not heard 
much of the details. We do not know whose benefits will be cut. We do 
not know whose programs will be eliminated.
  Mr. President, if Congress locks itself in too tightly in overall 
spending caps, and then refuses to make the tough decisions to cut 
specific programs, what will happen? Well, one likely result will be a 
sequester. That possibility looms larger now than it has in many years.
  Mr. President, there is a lot of debate now going on about a balanced 
budget amendment. The reason that that has developed is because all of 
us, whether one is a supporter of the balanced budget amendment or not, 
are anxious to bring this budget of ours under control. So we are 
resorting to techniques, we are resorting to programs instead of 
thoughtful planning on how to do it.
  What we are saying is let us pass the balancing on to an amorphous 
structure, something that says if we cannot do it--and I think it is a 
blink of the eye, because we can do it--if we cannot do it, let them do 
it.
  The case of the balanced budget amendment obviously, at one point 
along the line, falls to the courts to pick up the responsibilities. So 
I want to establish the fact--and I think my colleagues will agree--
that we, too, are at risk in some way if we fail to do what we tell the 
public we want to do.
  Mr. President, there will be handouts to the rich. They will be paid 
for in the end. There is a good chance that they will be paid for by 
ordinary Americans, whose Medicare and other benefits are subject to 
significant across-the-board cuts. The question I ask is, will Members 
of Congress feel their pain? Under the present structure, it does not 
look that way. The meat ax may fall, but our heads will not be in the 
guillotine. The blood on the floor will be the blood of lots of 
ordinary folks who have worked hard, played by the rules, and tried to 
make ends meet; but, once again, they will be asked to make or told 
that they are the ones who will make the sacrifice.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful the reason we will prevail and we will 
avoid that kind of fiscal irresponsibility is the threat is real. If 
the ax falls, Members of Congress should risk their necks, as well. Mr. 
President, even if we never have another sequester, we should eliminate 
the loophole for Members' pay. It is a matter of principle. It is the 
exact same principle, the principle that motivates this bill. Members 
of Congress are citizens, like everybody else. When we violate our own 
budget rules, we should not give ourselves any special exemptions.
  The staff that joins us here in this room, that supports Senators in 
their offices and supports Senators in their 
 [[Page S758]] committees--hard-working people, people who want to do a 
job and get a decent day's pay--wants to know that their pensions are 
secure when it comes time to retire. If there is a sequester, they feel 
it in their paychecks when the legislative budgets are reduced. That 
risk ought to be applied to those who are writing the bills. We ought 
to cut our pay to the same extent that anyone else who works for the 
Government might get cut if a sequester takes place.
  Mr. President, if we are serious about reform, this amendment should 
pass overwhelmingly. I think that as each of the Members comes up to 
the well and announces their vote, that it is important the public be 
aware of the fact that if they vote ``no,'' or vote against this 
amendment, that what they are saying is the old expression that kicks 
around here, ``Do not tax you and do not tax me, tax the guy behind the 
tree.'' That is what we are saying if this amendment fails to pass. I 
am hopeful that we will see it pass, because I think it is an important 
declaration of principle to the American people. I think it says to 
them that we are in the same boat as they are.
  It is a privilege to serve in this body. We are privileged and 
honored to have the responsibility of writing the laws that make this 
country a better place to live. We will be able to put our imprimatur, 
our signature on this, if we adopt this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, how much time is 
remaining on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If a quorum call is put in place, how is the time 
charged?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It requires unanimous consent at this time to 
put in the quorum call. The Senator must specify how the time would be 
split.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I 
have pledged to the majority leader that he will have 5 minutes, I 
think it is, to make his remarks. We will have the time run on our side 
of the clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object. I did not hear the 
unanimous-consent request. Was there one?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. There is. The unanimous-consent request is, if I may, 
Mr. President, that a quorum call be fully charged to our side because 
the majority leader has a commitment under the previous order of a 5-
minute response.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. That is OK with me.
  Mr. President, I have 5 minutes under my control?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is my understanding of the unanimous-
consent agreement, yes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I allocate myself such time as I may consume out of the 
5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey withhold his 
quorum call?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Has the Senator yielded the floor?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, from the standpoint of a 
philosophical approach to what the Senator from New Jersey is trying to 
espouse, as his amendment does, I have affiliated myself in the past 
with some attempts--this is the first time I have heard this approach 
used--but I have offered amendments or cosponsored amendments myself 
that would say there should be no pay raise for Members of Congress 
until we get the budget balanced.
  I think the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] has offered an 
amendment on the floor of this body before that I voted for that 
probably would have cut our salary a certain period of time until we 
got to a balanced budget. I voted for that. So I am not unsympathetic 
with what the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is trying to 
accomplish. But I can say this in regard to the underlying legislation: 
The underlying legislation attempts to, and I think successfully does, 
apply the laws to Congress that we have exempted ourselves from that 
presently and for, in some instances, five decades have applied to the 
private sector, so that we no longer have a system of a double standard 
in America: One set of laws is for Congress and another set of laws is 
for the rest of the Nation.
  That principle underlying this legislation then is the main argument 
for our not agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, 
because he imposes the requirement of sequestration on the rest of the 
budget to the salaries of Members of Congress. We are dealing totally 
within the public sector here. It has nothing to do with the 
application of laws that apply to the private sector on Congress from 
which laws we have been exempt, because the Federal budget, as an 
instrumentality of public policy, does not apply to the private sector.
  So, basically, the same argument can be used against the amendment of 
the Senator from New Jersey that has been used against the amendments 
that have been proposed from the other side of the aisle on Thursday 
and Friday of last week, Monday and Tuesday of this week and now we are 
in the fifth day of discussing a bill. It is unrelated. It is a subject 
worthy of discussion, what the Senator brings to our attention, but not 
on this legislation. So, consequently, not this time. In the first week 
of April, according to the Senator from New Mexico, the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee, the budget will be discussed in this 
body, and that is the appropriate place for the Senator from New Jersey 
to offer his amendment.
  It gives me an opportunity to emphasize then, as I said once today, 
and I have said each and every day this bill has been up, that we are 
on our fifth day on a bill that the House of Representatives passed in 
20 minutes on their first day of the session. If there was one clear 
message in the last election, it was that we should no longer have 
business as usual, and particularly this issue of the applicability of 
laws that Congress has exempted itself from to Capitol Hill. That was a 
major issue in the last campaign.
  There is hardly a freshman Member of this body that has not told me 
that in every one of their campaigns--I am talking about the people 
that were newly elected on November 8--there is not a one that said 
this was not a centerpiece of their campaign. Do not take it from those 
of us who have been in this body a while. Take it from those who bring 
some inspiration to this body to show the people of this country that 
this body is not going to continue to act business as usual, ignore the 
will of the people and do our own agenda, because the agenda was set by 
the American people in this election--and this bill, this underlying 
piece of legislation that we are dealing with and will hopefully pass 
at 5 o'clock this afternoon, the Congressional Accountability Act, 
where we cover ourselves by the laws we have exempted ourselves from in 
the past.
  So, I am asking my colleagues not to reject the substance of what the 
Senator says, the author of this amendment, but to reject it for the 
time being, and consider it again when the budget comes up the first 
week in April.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time on this amendment has 
expired. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the 
Senator from Iowa because he is someone who is very thoughtful. We 
served together on the Budget Committee. He is concerned about what 
takes place in terms of our acts related to the budget. I know that he 
is sincere when he makes the case for having this done at a later time.
  I respectfully, however, disagree with my friend from Iowa because I 
think, A, that there will be no delay in terms of final consideration 
of this bill. There is a unanimous-consent order that is for this 
evening, and any single Senator can prevent that order from being 
altered in any way. So the vote will take place. So there is no further 
delay that is going to be caused by this amendment.
  I think that it is quite clear that now--and I once again agree with 
the 
 [[Page S759]] distinguished Senator from Iowa--that we now are saying 
that this House, this body is subject to the same laws that we write 
for everybody else, and I agree with that. Therefore, in my view, this 
is the perfect opportunity to say not only will we obey the laws, in 
terms of our performance of our functions within our offices, but we 
are also going to take a personal hit if something goes awry if we do 
not plan carefully enough to meet the budget targets that we have set.
  That law has been in place now I guess for 7 years--1986, I am 
reminded, 8 years, 9 years now--and we have had a couple of sequester 
years. But we have not had as much of a likelihood that a sequester ax 
will fall as we have facing the next year's budget, because everyone 
knows that we are trying to squeeze things down. In the process, if we 
miss those targets, we are going to have a sequester.
  Once again, to overstate the case perhaps, I think that if the 
American people's programs--and we are not necessarily talking about 
the private sector, we are talking about the public sector, we are 
talking about senior citizens, we are talking about veterans, we are 
talking about students--if those programs are diminished, then I see no 
earthly reason why our salaries should not reflect some adjustment for 
that year that corresponds with the reduction in programmatic dollars 
that might be available.
  So, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks. I yield back the remainder 
of my time and hope that we will adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back his time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, under the unanimous-consent agreement, what 
is the next order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next order of business will be the Senator 
from Nevada will be recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we will check and see if he is on the way 
over, and while he is on the way over I might make some remarks 
particularly addressed to people on our side of the aisle in that we on 
the Democratic side are the ones who have had the amendments on this 
legislation.
  The distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, was able on his side 
to convince everyone to keep amendments off, with the idea of treating 
this whole thing expeditiously and getting it through. I certainly 
share his desire.
  At the same time, it is within the right of every Senator to put 
forward amendments under Senate rules, whether germane or not. And I do 
personally think there will come a time in the future when we do adopt 
germaneness rules so we can keep a lot of extraneous legislation off of 
the floor.
  What I wanted to say in addressing our side of the aisle in 
particular on this bill, we had a number of amendments and people lost 
on those amendments. We did not succeed in passing any of them. 
Sometimes when you get into debate in the Chamber, it gets into a 
rather heartfelt situation. We have issues about which people care very 
strongly, and they are not willing to give up easily. And there is a 
tendency sometimes to vote against the underlying legislation because 
people are in a state of semipique or disagreement or unhappiness 
because their particular amendment, which may or may not have been 
germane, did not pass.
  Now, I hope if we have anyone on our side of the aisle who is taking 
that attitude and plans to vote against this bill because their 
particular amendment was not accepted, we can convince them to put 
aside that attitude and vote for this bill.
  I think this bill is right. I think it is fair. There are a couple of 
things that are addressed by this bill. One is the perception out there 
in the country that somehow we are above the law; that we treat 
ourselves differently, and that is a perception, of course, about which 
we all must be concerned.
  But second, the importance of this bill, quite apart from dealing 
with perceptions, it seems to me, is that you come back to the 
question, is it right or is it wrong that we pass this legislation? And 
I say it is right because what it does, it gives the same protection to 
our own Hill employees, those who work for us on Capitol Hill, that we 
have passed here in years past and said it is good for the rest of the 
country; we want to protect the workers out there with OSHA laws and we 
want fair employment laws and the right to organize--all these things 
that we say, yes, sir, under the American justice system, this is right 
for the rest of the country. I would say if it is right for the rest of 
the country and if people need that kind of protection out there or 
have rights that need protection, then our Hill employees have those 
same rights and to treat them fairly we need to pass this kind of 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I was asked earlier today by one of the leading 
reporters here that covers the House and covers the Senate on a regular 
basis, just what difference does this bill make? Well, I think in some 
areas it makes a substantial change and in some areas it does not. 
Through the years, we have provided some protections in laws in a 
rather haphazard manner, and the haphazard manner has extended also to 
the process by which an employee could file a grievance of some kind 
and have it dealt with, with various procedures.
  So what this bill does is to two things. One, it takes all of these 
different laws--in fact, under the antidiscrimination laws we apply 
four laws, some of which were covered before, some of which were not: 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination, Americans With 
Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, all under antidiscrimination; 
under public services and accommodations under ADA: title II, Americans 
With Disabilities; title III, Americans With Disabilities; workplace 
protection laws: Fair Labor Standards Act regulations to be promulgated 
that will track executive branch regulations on people that work 
irregular schedules or whose schedules depend directly on the Senate 
schedule, OSHA laws, Family and Medical Leave Act, Employee Polygraph 
Protection Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, Veterans 
Reemployment Act. Under labor-management relations, chapter 71 of title 
V will apply now.
  So all of these are laws that we now say will apply, and we give a 
very specific grievance process that employees can use to address 
whatever problem they are having or however they feel they are being 
discriminated against or dealt with unfairly.
  So it covers everything. And second, it provides this grievance 
process which we have not had before that takes care of some of the 
objections our Members have had through the years about this separation 
of powers from one branch of Government to the other.
  Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from Nevada in the 
Chamber, and I am happy to yield to him anytime he is ready to go. I 
was filling in momentarily here with some comments to people on our 
side of the aisle while the Senator prepared.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment to commend the 
Senator from Ohio for his statement urging his colleagues to support 
this legislation notwithstanding the defeat of a number of amendments 
that were offered and rejected.
  I might say, just speaking for myself, that a number of the 
amendments which were offered, were they to be offered as free-standing 
legislation, probably would enjoy broad bipartisan support. But we 
should be clear about what is taking place. There is a momentum that 
has started in the House of Representatives. There is the Contract with 
America that the majority in the House and the Senate would like to see 
brought to the floor for debate and disposition. The majority is 
determined during that first 100 days to do whatever it can to 
facilitate that.
  Now, given the fact that we have different rules in the Senate than 
in the House, they can act much more expeditiously than we can in the 
Senate. The Senate was not designed to act in that fashion. In fact, 
this institution was designed to slow things down so we could have more 
careful deliberation than the other body.
  I must say that even though amendments were offered and rejected, it 
did 
 [[Page S760]] not necessarily reflect upon their respective merits. I 
would hope that the Senator's colleagues would heed his call for 
support for the underlying legislation, not only, as he indicated, 
because if a law is right for others it should be right for us. We 
should also recognize that the motivation for this legislation was not 
only to impose a sense of equity but also a sense of reality.
  Someone once described Washington as being a city of marble 
surrounded on four sides by reality. That is what has been missing for 
the most part in terms of the reality of the consequences of what we 
do. We pass legislation from the very highest of motivations. We are 
trying to help people who are in need of help. We are trying to improve 
workplace safety; we are trying to improve the health and well-being of 
our constituents; we are trying to do many things on behalf of other 
people. Yet we do not necessarily do so in a way that is reflective 
enough of the consequences that must be borne by others that we do not 
have to bear ourselves.
  So this is not only an issue of equity. I think it really is 
motivated principally from an issue of reality--that we will be more 
aware of the consequences of what we are about to do if we are forced 
to live under the same rules. So I would urge my colleagues to support 
the recommendation of the Senator from Ohio that, notwithstanding the 
rejection of the amendments which were offered, they lend their support 
to this measure.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments of my 
distinguished colleague from Maine.
  Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Nevada is ready and 
I think he was awaiting the arrival of the distinguished majority 
leader, who was to have a colleague with him, on the subject that he 
will present.
  Until the majority leader arrives, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.

                          ____________________