[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1189-S1201]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, there is a serious debate going on over 
whether the Federal Government should continue to play a role, the 
small part it currently plays, in supporting the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting.
  On Tuesday, in a speech before the National Press Club, Ervin Duggan, 
president of the PBS, outlined reasons why support from the Government 
is important, and I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Duggan's speech 
printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today I would like to reiterate my support 
for public broadcasting because of the important educational role it 
plays in our society. We invest very little and we get a lot in return.
  Public broadcasting does not rely solely, or even mostly, on 
Government support. Only 14 percent of its budget comes from Congress, 
approximately $1.09 per person. The rest of its funding comes from 5 
million Americans and hundreds of corporations who understand the 
importance of quality commercial-free educational broadcasting.
  Public broadcasting is no longer just MacNeil/Lehrer, ``All Things 
Considered,'' ``Sesame Street,'' and the Civil War series. I have been 
particularly impressed with the way public broadcasting is using new 
technology for education. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, who 
otherwise would not have the opportunity, can earn their high school or 
college degree through courses shown on public television. At 60 
colleges--and that number is growing--students can earn a 2-year degree 
through PBS telecourses.
  Millions of teachers use television's best programs, like Ken Burns' 
remarkable Civil War series, in the classroom. Many of these programs 
are now available to educators on laser disk for interactive learning.
  Many public broadcasting stations are currently on the Internet, 
along [[Page S1190]] with PBS, NPR, and the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting.
  In times of budget deficits, we all understand that we have to make 
the most of our limited resources, but we must also understand that one 
of the targets of our resources is education and that education, as we 
know it today, encompasses more than just a classroom. It is libraries, 
movies, television, radio, computers, museums, and the many other 
outlets of information available.
  In today's society, where quality educational programming is so rare, 
public broadcasting fills a unique and important niche, and it asks us 
to invest so little--one-fiftieth of 1 percent of our budget.
  Most of us in Washington have the opportunity to enjoy local public 
television programming through WETA, one of the top five public 
broadcasting stations in the country. But public television also 
reaches out to the far corners of our country--and in my own State, to 
Richmond, Charlottesville, Roanoke, Norfolk, and Marion. Public 
broadcasting brings its viewers and listeners programs they might not 
otherwise have the chance to experience. For example, the majority of 
viewers who watch opera on public television do not have a college 
degree and make less than $40,000 a year.
  Mr. President, I believe our very small contribution to public 
broadcasting is one of the best investments this Government makes. As 
Mr. Duggan so aptly points out, public television could operate for 10 
years on what Fox paid for one program of NFL football. I hope the 
Congress will continue its commitment to public broadcasting.
  Mr. President, I thank you, and I thank the majority leader and the 
floor managers for allowing me to use these few minutes while they are 
concluding their effort to resolve this particular question.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                 The Living Tree of Public Broadcasting

                      (Remarks of Ervin S. Duggan)


                             investing well

       The little town where I grew up--Manning, South Carolina--
     was small enough that we could walk to church on Sunday. My 
     Sunday School teacher was a Southern matriarch named Virginia 
     Richards Sauls, one of nine daughters of a South Carolina 
     governor. Miss Virginia, as we called her, never tired of 
     telling us the great stories of the Bible. Her favorite was 
     the Parable of the Talents.
       In that parable, a rich man leaving on a journey entrusts 
     his property--measured in what were called talents--to his 
     three servants for safekeeping. He returns to find that two 
     servants have invested their talents well--so well, in fact, 
     that their worth has doubled. The other, foolishly, has 
     buried his talent in the ground. The master scolds and 
     punishes the foolish, hoarding servant, but says to the wise 
     and fruitful ones: ``Well done, thou good and faithful 
     servants; you have been faithful over a little; I will set 
     over you much.''
       That story, of course, is about the generous, productive 
     use of gifts; about sharing, building and creating. I mention 
     it because I am convinced that the people of public 
     broadcasting--the local volunteers, trustees, producers, 
     professionals and supporters who make up this enterprise--are 
     good and faithful servants who are living out a modern 
     reenactment of the Parable of the Talents. They do not eat 
     tax dollars; they plant them and grow others. They are 
     faithful over a little; they turn it into much.
       I'm concerned, however, that everything those good and 
     faithful servants have built over two generations is 
     suddenly, seriously at risk.
       For the next few minutes I'd like to talk about four 
     things:
       I want to talk first about a genuine crisis that faces the 
     nation we love. I call it the triple crisis.
       Second, I want to describe the remarkable local and 
     national partnership that constitutes public broadcasting--a 
     treasure not unlike our national parks, or The Smithsonian 
     Institution. I want to sketch its true nature, because too 
     many people seem not to understand it.
       Third, I'd like to say a few words about the dangers of 
     loose talk, of careless rhetoric, about ``privatizing'' 
     public broadcasting. If privatizing turns out to be only a 
     euphemism for defunding public broadcasting in a way that 
     would commercialize it; if privatizing, in the end, leads to 
     breaking it into pieces to be sold for salvage, much could be 
     lost, never to be regained.
       Fourth and finally, I want to suggest that there are 
     better, more creative possibilities for this great national 
     asset, this living tree called public broadcasting: 
     possibilities for more hopeful and constructive than merely 
     zeroing it out, or hacking the tree down to a stump.


                           the triple crisis

       Consider, first, the triple crisis that we face.
       First there is the crisis of education: Can we send all our 
     children to school ready to learn? Once they're there, can we 
     give them an education good enough to help them become 
     productive, responsible citizens and workers in a competitive 
     global economy?
       We face, second, a crisis in our popular culture--a 
     steadily coarsening, ever-more-tawdry, popular culture, 
     driven by marketplace imperatives to be increasingly violent 
     and exploitative. Today's electronic culture of gangsta rap 
     and kick-boxing superheroes not only makes it harder to be a 
     parent; except for a few honorable exceptions, our media 
     coldly abandon parents who yearn to give their children 
     decent values to live by. Telling those parents simply to 
     turn off the set if they don't like the violence and 
     tawdriness that they see is like telling people to wear gas 
     masks if they don't like pollution.
       We face, third, a crisis of citizenship. Can we still speak 
     with civility to one another? Can we approach our mutual 
     problems in an atmosphere of shared purpose? We citizens in 
     the center wonder--and we wince as our elected leaders vilify 
     one another in an atmosphere of gridlock. We wince to hear 
     commercial talk shows disintegrate into shouting matches and 
     peep shows for the lurid and bizarre. Can we create what 
     Father Richard Neuhaus calls a civil public square?


                   the populist broadcasting service?

       That triple crisis points me to my second topic: I know of 
     one institution that can constructively address every aspect 
     of that triple crisis. It is an imperfect institution, yet 
     one with many virtues. Its entire mission is education, 
     culture and citizenship. It is called public broadcasting.
       We could substitute, for that word ``public'' in public 
     broadcasting, the more elaborate words of Abraham Lincoln: 
     ``of the people, for the people, by the people.'' For public 
     broadcasting stations are not owned or controlled by 
     monolithic bureaucracies a thousand miles away. They're owned 
     by local boards, by universities, by school systems, by 
     nonprofit civic organizations.
       What could be more populist, more Jeffersonian? I can 
     almost see Thomas Jefferson in his study, watching Bill 
     Buckley's ``Firing Line'' debates. Jefferson, a child of the 
     Enlightenment, would have loved the enlightening mission of 
     public broadcasting. Jefferson the small-d democrat would 
     have loved its universal reach. Jefferson the inventor would 
     have wanted to meet the pioneers who brought the world closed 
     captioning for the deaf and an audio channel for the blind. 
     It is not far-fetched to say that public broadcasting is Mr. 
     Jefferson's other memorial: a temple of minds and voices; a 
     temple not built of stone.
       That word ``public'' means something else: free and 
     universally available to all. To enjoy its riches, no one has 
     to pay thousands of dollars for a computer and software and a 
     modem. If you do have a modem, however, we have a great new 
     service called PBS ONLINE. And you'll find many public 
     stations on the Internet, along with PBS, NPR, and the 
     Corporation for Public Broadcasting. To enjoy the riches of 
     public broadcasting, moreover, you don't have to plug in a 
     cable, or rent a converter, or pay hundreds of dollars a year 
     in subscriber fees or pay-per-view charges.
       That word ``public'' in public broadcasting refers to 
     something else, as well: a mission that cannot be replaced by 
     commercial operators any more than your public library can be 
     duplicated by Crown Books, a public school replaced by a New 
     England prep school, or a national seashore duplicated by a 
     commercial theme park.
       Our unique mission is service to teachers, students and 
     schools. This year, hundreds of thousands of Americans will 
     earn their high school or college degrees through courses 
     screened by local public television stations. Millions of 
     teachers will use classroom versions of our most famous 
     programs; my ninth-grade son, right now, is learning about 
     the Civil War from his teacher--and from a laserdisc version 
     of Ken Burns's masterpiece. As I speak to you, teachers 
     across the nation are learning the new Goals 2000 math 
     standards through a service called PBS MATHLINE. At 60 
     colleges--60 and growing--students can earn a two-year degree 
     totally through PBS telecourses, without going to campus.
       That is a side of public television many viewers, and many 
     members of Congress, don't know enough about. That mission, 
     however, sets us apart from every other broadcast and cable 
     service in America. For us, you see, education isn't an 
     afterthought, or window dressing or a sideline. It is in our 
     institutional genes. It is central to our purpose.
       Then there's our funding, public in the broadest sense of 
     that word. Public television, for example, has between five 
     and six million contributing members--five million 
     householders who give generously to something they could get 
     for free.
       Locally and nationally, hundreds of public-spirited 
     corporations underwrite programs--Mobil, General Motors, 
     Archer Daniels Midland and AT&T. They can buy commercials 
     elsewhere. Here, they care about another mission.
       Generous and visionary foundations like Olin, MacArthur, 
     the Pew Charitable Trusts, and Bradley also give.
       And then, joining all these stakeholders in our enterprise, 
     there's Congress. How much does Congress contribute each year 
     to public broadcasting? Roughly 14 percent of the budget for 
     this public-private enterprise. [[Page S1191]] Fourteen 
     percent. To put the question another way, how much of the 
     Federal budget does the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 
     account for? One fiftieth of one percent; two hundredths of 
     the Federal budget. In decimal form, point zero two.
       That's $1.09 per person, 80 cents of it for television. If 
     you bought just about any newspaper in the country last 
     Sunday, you paid more for that paper than you pay for public 
     broadcasting for an entire year. Think of it: Sesame Street, 
     MacNeil/Lehrer, NOVA, All Things Considered, Morning 
     Edition--all this, all year, for less than the cost of a cup 
     of coffee in Chicago. All of public television's buildings, 
     facilities, stations, programs, all year--everything--for a 
     dollar a year. We could operate PBS for ten years for what 
     Fox paid for just one program: NFL Football.
       Suppose we paid for interstate highways through such a 
     public-private partnership, with Congress appropriating only 
     14 percent of the total. Suppose we used this model to pay 
     for battleships or Capitol Hill offices and staffs? 
     Government leaders of both parties, who rightly care about 
     frugality and efficiency, about stretching every dollar, 
     would, I'm sure, hold parades in the streets to celebrate 
     such feats.
       Well, public broadcasting IS funded through such a frugal, 
     efficient partnership. Those who are taking aim at it, in my 
     judgment, should instead be saying, like the master in that 
     biblical parable, ``Well, done, thou good and faithful 
     servants. Enter into the reward laid up for thee.''


                 Cut Down the Living Tree, or Save It?

       Some of our leaders, however, are speaking in a different 
     way. They have targeted public broadcasting for a quick, 
     sidelong choke that could mean its eventual extinction. They 
     intend, they say, to ``privatize'' public broadcasting by 
     stripping it of federal funding. The professional political 
     term, inside the Beltway, is ``zeroing-out.''
       So let me turn now to my third topic--privatizing, which at 
     this point in the debate cannot be distinguished from another 
     word: commercializing.
       The opponents of public television deny that their 
     opposition is ideological; they deny they want to censor or 
     silence voices they don't like. After much complaint about 
     that issue, they now say they have other, more innocuous 
     reasons. Let us take them at their word.
       They argue that the federal government has ``no mandate'' 
     to keep funding public broadcasting; that noncommercial 
     educational broadcasting is ``not essential'' to the nation. 
     Surely, then, they plan to zero out, as well, The Smithsonian 
     Institution? The National Gallery? The Kennedy Center? 
     Federal support for the Internet? For these, too, are public 
     institutions of education and culture, like public 
     broadcasting. And these too, are not essential; not necessary 
     to life. They are simply among the things that make life 
     worth living, for rich and poor alike. Why single out public 
     broadcasting? I wonder why.
       Another complaint is that public broadcasting is elitist, a 
     ``sandbox for the rich.'' All the factual evidence, all the 
     research, all the data suggest the opposite: that the people 
     who love public broadcasting are the very same people who 
     make up America. The majority of viewers who watch opera on 
     public television, for example, don't have a college degree, 
     and their household incomes are less than forty thousand 
     dollars a year.
       What about the contention that public broadcasting is too 
     expensive? the numbers you have heard poke big holes in that 
     argument--especially when you add, to the numbers, the 
     matching efforts that expand and multiply the federal 
     contribution. To defund this enterprise for that reason--
     suddenly, unilaterally, and without consulting the millions 
     of other stakeholders who produce far more of its support--
     would be pound-foolish, not economical. To people outside the 
     Beltway, to thousands of local board members and volunteers, 
     such talk doesn't sound like reform. It sounds like assisted 
     suicide--a mask pressed down upon a patient who wants no such 
     assistance, and whose family isn't allowed into the room.
       Told how frugal we are, some of these detractors about-
     face, awkwardly, to yet another explanation: It's such a tiny 
     amount, they say, it could easily be made up from ``other 
     sources''--from toy sales, for example, tied to our 
     programming. The numbers don't add up, but who's counting?
       We need to be clear on one important point: In our economy, 
     there is no such thing as nonprofit venture capital. That 
     relatively small amount of federal funding--that 14 percent 
     of public broadcasting's budget--is our seed money, our risk 
     capital. If ``privatize'' means to ``zero out'' (and we're 
     told it does); and if no clear plan exist for replacing that 
     seed capital (and none has emerged), then to ``privatize,'' 
     means, perforce, to commercialize. Take away public 
     broadcasting's seed funding, starve it financially of its 
     only venture capital, however small--and you force it 
     headlong into the alien world of ad agencies and costs-per-
     thousand and merchandising, rather than the world of teachers 
     and historians and community volunteers.
       Surely those who speak of a quick, unilateral 
     ``privatizing'' don't intend that to be the final 
     destination. Or do they?
       Finally, we hear that cable can do everything public 
     television can do. Why not let a cable network, or several 
     cable networks, program PBS--as a sort of re-run channel? 
     Leave aside for the moment the implication here; the whiff of 
     trickle-down TV. Ask some other questions: Is this in the 
     public interest, or a commercial parody of the public 
     interest? Would America like to lose what would be lost? 
     Would America's existing commercial networks like such an 
     outcome? What would such a scheme do public television's 
     historic role as found and wellspring of innovative 
     program ideas?
       What, exactly, is the vision of those who would 
     ``privatize'' public broadcasting? Is it a vision that 
     preserves the original dream, or does it torch and destroy 
     that dream? They don't say. Is it a vision worthy of those 
     public-spirited Republicans and Democrats of the Carnegie 
     Commission, who created a new model called public 
     broadcasting 25 years ago? They don't say. Is it a vision for 
     a new and better future? Or is it, in fact, a death warrant 
     disguised as a new charter?


                          what the people say

       Perhaps our leaders on Capitol Hill need to listen to what 
     the people say. A national poll conducted by opinion Research 
     Corporation was released today. It suggests that most 
     Americans--84 percent--want that small but vital federal 
     stake in the partnership maintained or increased. Support for 
     federal funding totals 80 percent among Republicans; 86 
     percent among independents; 90 percent among Democrats.
       What do these numbers tell us? They suggest that the 
     parents and teachers and grandparents of this nation--the 
     people who live in homes with cable, and in the 32 million 
     homes that don't subscribe--may want a better plan. They seem 
     to want something more than vengeful zeroes, or 
     ``privatization'' schemes that threaten to commercialize or 
     kill.
       Fortunately, the people of public broadcasting, and the 
     people who cherish public broadcasting all over the nation, 
     have lots of good ideas. All over the country, local stations 
     are becoming educational teleplexes. They're planting the 
     flag of education on new technologies. They're turning the 
     existing infrastructure of public broadcasting into a free 
     educational launching pad into cyberspace.
       People within the world of public television have good 
     ideas, as well, about renewing and refreshing public 
     television: ideas, for example, about insulating its 
     governance and financing from the political vagaries of each 
     appropriations season. The original Carnegie Commission, made 
     up largely of Republican business leaders, called for a 
     national endowment, raised from a few pennies on the sale of 
     each TV set and radio. That's one idea. A reserve of spectrum 
     auction money is another. Tax credits and ``education 
     technology grants'' are another.
       The local leaders of public broadcasting are forward-
     looking. They are highly capable of planning the future of 
     their enterprise. Before changes are hatched that might be 
     ill-considered, we need some decent ground rules. Let me 
     suggest three:
       First, all of the stakeholders who support this local 
     enterprise ought to be invited to the table. Otherwise, any 
     outcome is likely to be imposed, not democratic.
       Second, the process should be orderly, not precipitous; 
     careful, not headlong. Public broadcasting has taken 40 years 
     to achieve its present excellence. Why all this haste to 
     dispatch it in 100 days, by a quick, sidelong fiscal 
     choking?
       Third, we need to be candid about the real motives 
     underlying proposals for change. What are we to think about 
     would-be surgeons who seem to despise their patient?


                            do they hear us?

       It was Edmund Burke who pointed out that the true 
     conservatism lops off dead branches, in order to preserve the 
     living tree. Public broadcasting, however imperfect it may 
     be, is part of the living tree: the tree of education, 
     culture and citizenship. To chop up that tree and sell it off 
     as cordwood would be violent and extreme, not conservative.
       The volunteers, professionals and board members of 
     America's public broadcasting stations are eager to tell 
     their leaders about the worth and potential of that living 
     tree. They see a historian and educator as the House Speaker 
     and they say, ``History: that's what we're about.'' They hear 
     Speaker Gingrich discuss our need to nurture and care for our 
     young and say, ``Education: that's what we're about.'' They 
     hear Speaker Gingrich's speeches about futurism and 
     technology and the Third Wave--about laptops for the poor--
     and they say, in so many words, ``Technology for humane ends: 
     that's what we're about. Is he listening? Does he know we're 
     here?''
       Those same leaders look at the biography of Senator 
     Pressler and see a son of Harvard; a Rhodes Scholar, a 
     Senator whose constituents, many of them, live in rural 
     places or are too poor to afford a monthly bill for cable, 
     great as cable is. They say, ``We have a great deal to say to 
     him. Will he listen?''
       The people of public broadcasting--thousands of them, who 
     have created jobs and educational services and community 
     outreach projects out of their local stations, are ready to 
     join in a discussion about its renewal and its future. But 
     they will also fight the reflex to destroy what they have 
     built. Today they know that millions of Americans agree with 
     them.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S1192]]
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PELL. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for a 
few minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            the cloture vote

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I refer to my position on the vote we took 
earlier today on the cloture motion to curtail debate on the unfunded 
mandates bill. On that vote I declared a live pair but indicated I 
would have voted for cloture.
  I was not comfortable with that vote, particularly because it placed 
me at cross purposes with the leadership on this side of the aisle in 
their campaign to assure fair treatment of the minority.
  But I took the position I did in the context of the long-standing 
practice I have followed since I first came to the Senate in 1961. And 
that practice is simply to support termination of debate except in 
extraordinary circumstances and to allow a majority of the Senate to 
work its will.
  Over the 34 years that I have served in the Senate, I have cast 327 
votes in favor of cloture, and some 55 of those were cast when our 
party was in the minority.
  But in the same period I have always reserved the right to support 
continued debate--or at least not voting for cloture--when there were 
clear and extraordinary circumstances which called for extended 
deliberations.
  Indeed, there have been some 32 occasions in which I either paired 
or, as in two cases, voted against cloture, or was absent. In the 
future, I expect to continue my longstanding practice of voting for 
cloture.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may print in the Record 
a listing of issues on which I have voted for cloture from the 87th 
Congress through the 103d Congress.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                           Pell Cloture Votes


                             87th congress

       Amend rule 22.
       Literacy tests (2).
       Communication satellite.


                             88th congress

       Amend rule 22.
       Civil rights.


                             89th congress

       Voting rights.
       Right-to-work (3).
       Civil rights (2).
       D.C. home rule.


                             90th congress

       Amend rule 22.
       Open housing (4).
       Fortas nomination.


                             91st congress

       Amend Rule 22 (2).
       Electoral college (2).
       Supersonic transport funds (2).


                              92d congress

       Amend rule 22 (4)
       Military draft.
       Lockheed loan.
       Rehnquist nomination.
       EEOC (3).
       U.S. Soviet Arms Pact.
       Consumer Agency (2).


                              93d congress

       Voter registration (3).
       Campaign financing reform (4).
       Rhodesian chrome (3).
       Legal services (3).
       Genocide treaty (2).
       Government pay raise.
       Public debt ceiling (3).
       Consumer Protection Act (4).
       Export-Import Bank (4).
       Trade reform.
       Supplemental appropriations (school desegregation).
       Social Services.
       Upholstery import regulations/Taxes and tariff.


                             94TH CONGRESS

       Regional railroad reorganization.
       Cloture reform (2).
       Tax reduction (2).
       Consumer Protection Agency.
       Personal Senate committee staff.
       New Hampshire Senate contest (6).
       Voting Rights Act (2).
       Oil price ceiling.
       Labor-HEW/busing (2).
       Common-site parking (2).
       Railroad reorganization.
       New York aid.
       Rice production.
       Antitrust bill (2).
       Civil rights attorney's fees.


                             95TH CONGRESS

       Vietnam draft evader pardon.
       Campaign financing (3).
       Natural gas deregulations.
       Labor law reforms (6).
       Tax reduction.
       Energy tax conference report.


                             96TH CONGRESS

       Windfall profits tax (4).
       Nomination of William A. Lubbers to general counsel, NLRB 
     (2).
       Rights of institutionalized persons (4).
       Draft registration.
       Nomination of Don Zimmerman to be a member of NLRB (2).
       Alaska lands.
       Vessel tonnage/surface mining.
       Fair Housing amendments (2).
       Nomination of Stephen Breyer to be U.S. Circuit Court 
     Judge.


                             97th congress

       Dept. of Justice authorization/busing (2).
       Broadcasting of Senate Chamber proceedings.
       Criminal Code Reform Act of 1982.
       Urgent Supplemental Appropriations, 1982.
       Voting Rights Act extensions.
       Temporary debt limit increase/abortion.
       Temporary debt limit increase/school prayer (4).
       Antitrust contributions (2).
       Surface Transportation Assistance Act (5).


                             98th congress

       Emergency jobs appropriations.
       Emergency jobs appropriations, amendment on interest and 
     dividend tax withholding (3).
       Natural Gas Policy Act Amendments.
       Capital Punishment.
       Hydroelectric Power Plants.
       Budget Act Waiver, agriculture appropriations (2).
       Nomination of J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, to be a circuit 
     judge.
       Financial Services Competitive Equity Act (2).
       Broadcasting of Senate Proceedings (2).
       Continuing Appropriations, Civil Rights Act of 1984.


                             99th congress

       South African Anti-Apartheid (4).
       Line Item Veto (3).
       Public Debt Limit/Balanced Budget.
       Conrail Sale (2).
       Sydney A. Fitzwater to be District Judge.
       Metropolitan Washington Airports Transfer (2).
       Hobbs Act Amendment.
       National Defense Authorization Act, FY 1987.
       Military Construction Appropriations, 1987 (Contra Aid).
       William Rehnquist to be Chief Justice.
       Product Liability Reform Act.
       Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.
       Immigration Reform and Control Act.


                             100th congress

       Contra Aid Moratorium (3).
       Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.
       DOD Authorization FY '88 & '89 (3).
       Senatorial Election Campaign Act (5).
       Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1987 (3).
       Melissa Wells to be Ambassador to Mozambique.
       Senatorial Election Campaign Act (3).
       DOD Authorization FY' 88 & '89 (2).
       C. William Verity to be Secretary of Commerce.
       War Powers Act Compliance.
       Energy and Water Development Appropriations.
       Polygraph protection.
       Intelligence oversight.
       High-Risk Occupational Disease Notification/Prevention Act 
     (4).
       Constitutional Amendment on Campaign Contributions (2).
       Extension of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
       Death Penalty for Drug Related Killings.
       Great Smokey Mountains Wilderness Act (2).
       Plant Closing Notification Act (2).
       Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Trade Act.
       Minimum Wage Restoration Act of 1988 (2).
       Parental and Medical Leave Act (2).


                             101st congress

       National Defense Authorization Act FY 1990-91.
       DOT Appropriations.
       Eastern Airlines Labor Dispute (2).
       Nicaragua Election Assistance.
       Ethics in Government Act.
       Armenian Genocide Day of Remembrance (2).
       Hatch Act Reform.
       AIDS Emergency Relief.
       Chemical Weapons.
       Federal Death Penalty Act of 1989 (2).
       Air Travel Rights For Blind.
       Civil Rights Act of 1990.
       National Defense Authorization Act FY 1991.
       Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act (2).
       Family Planning Amendments, 1989.
       National Voter Registration.
       Foreign Operations Appropriations, 1991.


                             102d congress

       Retail Price Maintenance (2).
       Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 (5).
       National Voter Registration Act (4).
       Veterans and H.U.D. Appropriations, 1992.
       Foreign Assistance Authorization (3).
       Unemployment Compensation.
       National Defense Authorization Act FY 1992-93.
       Department of Interior Appropriation, 1992. [[Page S1193]] 
       Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992.
       Civil Rights Act of 1992.
       National Energy Security Act.
       Deposit Insurance Reform Act.
       Hostages in Iran Investigation.
       Crime Control Act of 1991.
       National Literacy and Strengthening Education for American 
     Families Act.
       National Cooperative Research Act Extension of 1991.
       Lumbee Tribe Recognition Act.
       Corporation for Public Broadcasting Reauthorization.
       Appropriations Category Reform Act.
       NIH Reauthorization Act, 1992.
       Workplace Fairness Act (2).
       Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act (2).
       Product Liability Fairness Act (2).
       National Literacy and Strengthening Education for American 
     Families Act (2).
       Labor-HHS Appropriation, 1993.
       START Treaty.
       Comprehensive National Energy Policy Act.
       Tax Act.


                             103d congress

       National Voter Registration Act (4).
       Supplemental Appropriations, 1993 (4).
       Campaign Finance Reform Act (6).
       Natl. and Community Service.
       Walter Dellinger--Atty. General.
       Interior Conference Report (3).
       State Department; 5 Nominees.
       Brady Handgun (2).
       Janet Napolitano to be US Attorney.
       National Competitiveness Act.
       Fed. Workforce Restruct. Conf. Rpt. (2).
       Goals 2000: Conf. Rept.
       Derek Shearer.
       Sam W. Brown etc. (2).
       Product Liability Fairness (2).
       Striker Replacement (2).
       Crime Bill Conference.
       California Desert Protection.
       Ricki Tigert.
       H. Lee Sarokin.
       Elem. & Second. Education.
       Lobbying Disclosure (2).
       California Desert Protection.


                        mexican financial crisis

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, over the last 3 weeks a steep decline in the 
value of the Mexican peso has precipitated a financial crisis with 
worldwide implications. The peso's loss has not only shaken investor 
confidence on the Mexican stock market, but triggered a short-term debt 
crisis that is affecting currencies and markets throughout the 
hemisphere. Without a swift and sure response to this crisis, Mexico 
could face serious economic decline and political instability.
  President Clinton was quick to recognize the long-term danger this 
poses for all of us. A Mexican crisis would hit the United States 
economy hard by reducing Mexico's ability to import United States goods 
and services. It could increase illegal immigration and destabilize the 
Mexican Government. Finally, it could spread to other emerging market 
economies and further reduce U.S. exports.
  In light of these potential consequences, the administration moved 
expeditiously to propose a package of loan guarantees to address the 
problem. The Departments of Treasury and State have been working 
closely with the bipartisan leadership of the House and the Senate to 
craft a loan guarantee package that will bring an end to the crisis 
without costing money to the American taxpayer. I hope that soon we 
will be able to move forward on legislation to help resolve the Mexican 
crisis while addressing the legitimate concerns that many have raised.
  I am concerned that the loan guarantee program be structured so it 
will not become a cost to our taxpayers.
  In addition it is important there be full disclosure to Americans of 
those investors, United States, Mexican, and others, who will benefit 
by our United States action to guarantee up to $40 billion of Mexican 
Government bonds used to satisfy Mexican Government obligations to 
those investors.
  Mr. President, yesterday at the Department of Treasury, President 
Clinton spoke about the broader implications of the Mexican situation 
and about the package being put together to respond to it. I believe 
his remarks were very helpful and instructive, and I ask unanimous 
consent that they be printed in the Record:
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Remarks by the President, January 18, 1995

       The President. Thank you very much, Secretary Rubin and 
     Ambassador Kantor.
       Ladies and gentlemen, we wanted to be here today to make 
     the clearest public case we can for the proposal, which has 
     been developed by the administration and the bipartisan 
     leadership in Congress, for dealing with the present 
     situation.
       We have worked hard with an extraordinary group of people 
     who have joined forces because all of us realize how 
     important this proposal is--not only to the people of Mexico 
     but also to the United States and to our workers. We are 
     acting to support the Mexican economy and to protect and 
     promote the interests of the American people.
       As Ambassador Kantor said, and as all of you know very 
     well, we live in an increasingly global economy in which 
     people, products, ideas and money travel across national 
     borders with lightning speed. We've worked hard to help our 
     workers take advantage of that economy by getting our own 
     economic house in order, by expanding opportunities for 
     education and training, and by expanding the frontiers of 
     trade, by doing what we could to make sure there was more 
     free and fair trade for Americans. And we know, and all of 
     you know, that those efforts are creating high wage jobs for 
     our people that would otherwise not be there.
       Our goal, our vision must be to create a global economy of 
     democracies with free market not government-run economies; 
     democracies that practice free and fair trade, that give 
     themselves a chance to develop and become more prosperous, 
     while giving our own people the opportunity they deserve to 
     reap the benefits of high-quality, high-productivity American 
     labor, in terms of more jobs and higher incomes.
       We have pursued this goal with vision and with discipline, 
     through NAFTA, through the Summit of the Americas, through a 
     number of other international endeavors, like GATT and the 
     Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation Group. But we have pursued 
     it especially here in our own hemisphere, where we are 
     blessed to see every nation but one governed in a democratic 
     fashion, and a genuine commitment to free market economics 
     and to more open trade.
       We have to know that the future on this path is plainly the 
     right one, but as with any path, it cannot be free of 
     difficulties. We have to make decisions based on a determined 
     devotion to the idea of what we are pursuing over the long 
     run. We know that given the volatility of the economic 
     situation in the globe now, there can be developments that 
     for the moment are beyond the control of any of our trading 
     partners, themselves developing nations, which could threaten 
     this vision and threaten the interests of the American 
     people.
       Mexico's present financial difficulty is a very good case 
     in point. Of course, it's a danger to Mexico, but as has 
     already been said, it is plainly also a danger to the 
     economic future of the United States.
       NAFTA helped us to dramatically increase our exports of 
     goods and services. It helped us to create more than 100,000 
     jobs here at home through increased exports to Mexico. But 
     over the long run, it means even more. It means even more 
     opportunities with Mexico, it means the integration of the 
     rest of Latin America and the Caribbean into an enormous 
     basket of opportunities for us in the future. And we cannot--
     we cannot let this momentary difficulty cause us to go 
     backward now.
       That's why, together with the congressional leadership, I 
     am working so hard to urge Congress to pass an important and 
     necessary package to back private sector loans to Mexico with 
     a United States government guarantee. Let me say, I am very 
     gratified by the leadership shown in the Congress on both 
     sides of the aisle.
       By helping to put Mexico back on track, this package will 
     support American exports, secure our jobs, help us to better 
     protect our borders, and to safeguard democracy and economic 
     stability in our hemisphere--because America and American 
     workers are more secure when we support a strong and growing 
     market for our exports; because America and American workers 
     are more secure when we help the Mexican people to see the 
     prospect of decent jobs and a secure future at home through a 
     commitment to free-market economics, political democracy and 
     growing over the long term; and because we're more secure 
     when more and more other countries also enjoy the benefits of 
     democracy and economic opportunity; and, perhaps most 
     important, over the long run, because we are more secure if 
     we help Mexico to remain a strong and stable model for 
     economic development around our hemisphere and throughout the 
     world.
       If we fail to act, the crisis of confidence in Mexico's 
     economy could spread to other emerging countries in Latin 
     America and in asia--the kinds of markets that buy our goods 
     and services today and that will buy far more of them in the 
     future.
       Developing these markets is plainly in the interests of the 
     American people. We must act to make sure that we maintain 
     the kind of opportunities now being seized by the Secretary 
     of Commerce and the delegation of American business leaders 
     who have had such a successful trip to India.
       If you take Mexico, just consider the extraordinary 
     progress made in recent years. Mexico erased a budget deficit 
     that once equalled 15 percent of its Gross Domestic Product. 
     It slashed inflation from 145 percent a year to single 
     digits. It sold off inefficient state enterprises, 
     dramatically reduced its foreign debt, opened virtually every 
     market to global competition. This is proof that the Mexican 
     government and the Mexican people are willing to make 
     decisions that are good for the long run, even if it entails 
     some short-term sacrifice for them, they know where their 
     future, prosperity and opportunity lie. [[Page S1194]] 
       Now Mexico, of course, will have to demonstrate even 
     greater discipline to work itself out of the current crisis. 
     Let me say, through, it's important that we understand what's 
     happened. And the Secretary of Treasury and I and a lot of 
     others spent a lot of time trying to make sure we understood 
     exactly what had happened before we recommended a course of 
     action.
       It is clear that this crisis came about because Mexico 
     relied too heavily upon short-term foreign loans to pay for 
     the huge upsurge in its imports from the United States and 
     from other countries. A large amount of those debts come due 
     at a time when because of the nature of the debts, it caused 
     a serious cash flow problem from Mexico, much like a family 
     that expects to pay for a new home with the proceeds from the 
     sale of its old house only to have the sale fall through.
       Now, together with the leadership of both houses, our 
     administration has forged a plan that makes available United 
     States government guarantees to secure private sector loans 
     to Mexico. The leadership in Congress from both sides of the 
     aisle and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board developed 
     this plan with us. It is something we did together because we 
     knew it was important, important enough to the strategic 
     interest of the United States to do it in lockstep and to 
     urge everyone without regard to party or region of the 
     country or short-term interests to take the long view what is 
     good for America and our working people.
       We all agree that something had to be done. Now, these 
     guarantees, it's important to note, are not foreign aid. They 
     are not a gift. They are not a bailout. They are not United 
     States government loans. They will not affect our current 
     budget situation. Rather they are the equivalent of cosigning 
     a note, a note that Mexico can use to borrow money on its own 
     account. And because the guarantees are clearly not entirely 
     risk-free to the United States, Mexico will make an advanced 
     payment to us, like an insurance premium. No guarantees will 
     be issued until we are satisfied that Mexico can provide the 
     assured means of repayment. As soon as the situation in 
     Mexico is fully stabilized, we expect Mexico to start 
     borrowing once again from the private markets without United 
     States government guarantees.
       The U.S. has extended loans and loan guarantees many, many 
     times before to many different countries. In fact, we've had 
     a loan mechanism in place with Mexico since 1941. And Mexico 
     has always made good on its obligations.
       Now, there will be tough conditions here to make sure that 
     any private money loaned to Mexico on the basis of our 
     guarantees is well and wisely used. Our aim in imposing the 
     conditions, I want to make clear, is not to micromanage 
     Mexico's economy or to infringe in any way on Mexico's 
     sovereignty, but simply to act responsibly and effectively so 
     that we can help to get Mexico's economic house back in 
     order.
       I know some say we should not get involved. They say 
     America has enough trouble at home to worry about what's 
     going on somewhere else. There are others who may want to get 
     involved in too much detail to go beyond what the present 
     situation demands or what is appropriate. But we must see 
     this for what it is. This is not simply a financial problem 
     for Mexico; this is an American challenge.
       Mexico is our third largest trading partner already. The 
     livelihoods of thousands and thousands of our workers depend 
     upon continued strong export growth to Mexico. That's why we 
     must reach out and not retreat.
       With the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I am asking the 
     new Congress to cast a vote, therefore, for the loan 
     guarantee program as a vote for America's workers and 
     America's future. It is vital to our interests; it is vital 
     to our ability to shape the kind of world that I think we all 
     know we have to have.
       No path to the future--let me say again--in a time when 
     many decisions are beyond the immediate control of any 
     national government, much less that of a developing nation, 
     no path to the future can be free of difficulty. Not every 
     stone in a long road can be seen from the first step. But if 
     we are on the right path, then we must do this. Our interests 
     demand it, our values support it, and it is good for our 
     future.
       Let me say again that the coalition of forces supporting 
     this measure is significant--it may be historic. The new 
     Republican leaders in Congress, the leadership of the 
     Democratic Party in Congress, the Chairman of the Federal 
     Reserve Board--why are they doing this? And I might say, I 
     was immediately impressed by how quickly every person I 
     called about this said, clearly, we have to act. They 
     instinctively knew the stakes.
       Now, in the public debate, questions should be properly 
     asked and properly answered. But let us not forget what the 
     issue is, let us not read to little into this moment, or try 
     to load it up with too many conditions, unrelated to the 
     moment. The time is now to act. It is in our interest. It is 
     imperative to our future. I hope all of you will do what you 
     can to take that message to the Congress and to the American 
     people.
       Thank you very much. (Applause).

  Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 171 to Amendment No. 31

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Dodd be listed as a cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. LOTT. Just to clarify a couple of points that we discussed, if 
the leadership should come in and need some time for discussion, I am 
certain the Senator's intention is to yield for that. Is that correct?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Mississippi, the 
majority whip, is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. Is the Senator going to seek a time agreement on this 
amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be pleased to seek a time 
agreement. If we are going to plan for it around 8:30, 30 minutes would 
be fine, equally divided. I ask, if the other side does not need 15 
minutes, I might need a little bit more than 15 minutes. Is that all 
right?
  Mr. LOTT. I think it would be appropriate to ask unanimous consent 
that the time limit on this amendment be limited to 30 minutes equally 
divided, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield for one more moment, I will ask 
unanimous consent, if it meets with the approval of the Democratic 
side. I ask unanimous consent that a rollcall vote occur at 8:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 171 to amendment No. 
     31.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 language proposed to be inserted, add the 
     following:

     SEC.   . CHILDRENS' IMPACT STATEMENT.

       Consideration of any bill or joint resolution of a public 
     character reported by any committee of the Senate or of the 
     House of Representatives that is accompanied by a committee 
     report that does not contain a detailed analysis of the 
     probable impact of the bill or resolution on children, 
     including whether such bill or joint resolution will increase 
     the number of children who are hungry or homeless, shall not 
     be in order.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, this amendment is a children's impact statement that 
Senator Dodd and I proposed. This amendment says, and I quote for my 
colleagues:

       Consideration of any bill or joint resolution of a public 
     character reported by any committee of the Senate or of the 
     House of Representatives that is accompanied by a committee 
     report that does not contain a detailed analysis of the 
     probable impact of the bill or resolution on children, 
     including whether such bill or joint resolution will increase 
     the number of children who are hungry or homeless, shall not 
     be in order.

  Mr. President, this essentially says--and it is very consistent with 
this overall piece of legislation--that if a committee with legislation 
reports out a separate report, as we often do, then that report should 
include an impact [[Page S1195]] statement of the impact of that piece 
of legislation will have on children, and if it does not, then that 
piece of legislation will not be in order on the floor.
  Mr. President, that is the same point of order that is the 
methodology of this piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, I want to be clear with my colleagues that this is 
very different from the amendment that I proposed last week. The 
amendment I proposed last week said that if we were going to be moving 
forward on an agenda that I believe is going to be very mean spirited, 
it is important that we go on record with an assurance to people that 
we will not be passing any piece of legislation, any cut, any 
amendment, which could lead to an increase in homelessness or an 
increase in hunger among children. That amendment was voted down. I 
will bring that amendment back to the floor for a separate vote. I will 
continue to do so because I think this is something on which all of us, 
Democrats and Republicans, should go on record.
  Mr. President, this particular amendment, this children's impact 
statement, is a little bit different. What I am essentially saying is 
that if we are going to be talking about the impact of legislation on 
State governments, the impact of legislation on local governments, the 
impact of legislation on large corporations, or for that matter small 
businesses, then we ought to be willing to look carefully at the impact 
of legislation on our children.
  By the way, I say to my colleagues, this is a very moderate proposal. 
I am just simply trying to require that when committees have a report, 
that included in that report there be a children's impact statement. We 
will all look carefully at the impact of what we are doing with our 
legislation on children.
  In context, Mr. President, The Children's Defense Fund just came out 
with a study. Unfortunately, this closely parallels some fairly 
rigorous analysis that is being done right now about where we are 
heading by the year 2002, if in fact we move forward with a balanced 
budget amendment. But part of the balanced budget amendment equation is 
that we increase Pentagon spending, we engage in this continuing war 
for more and more tax cuts, and in addition we leave other major 
spending categories out or we put them in parentheses. The question 
becomes, then, what do you need to do to cut $1.2 trillion or $1.3 
trillion? The assumption is, we may very well, with what is left in the 
budget, be talking about a 30-percent cut in programs that help 
children and families.
  If that is the case the Children's Defense Fund estimates that in the 
United States, just looking at fiscal year 2002, we would be talking 
about overall 1,992,550 babies, preschoolers, and pregnant women losing 
infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements.
  Mr. President, this is an estimate of how many children would be 
affected in fiscal year 2002. This is very well the direction we could 
be going in. By the way, Mr. President, I think one of the reasons some 
of leadership that has been pushing so hard on a balanced budget 
amendment is unwilling to talk about where the cuts will be before they 
get a vote on this amendment is because the arithmetic is so 
compelling. And in many, many ways, by the way, we are going very much 
against the mandates from people in this country. I thought we were 
trying to act on that mandate, because one of the things people have 
said to us is to be truthful, be straightforward, and be honest with 
us, do not try and finesse us.

  I think one of the reasons--and I am only taking one part of this 
agenda--a good part of the leadership--Mr. Armey is just one--that is 
unwilling to talk specifically about where the cuts are going to take 
place before people vote up or down on this proposal is because of 
where the cuts will take place. While I cannot be certain, given what 
has been taken off the table, given what Senators do not seem to be 
willing to look at by way of cuts, then we can only look at that part 
of the budget which is on the table. And when we look at that part of 
the budget which is on the table, unfortunately, we are talking about 
cuts in programs that are extremely important for the most vulnerable 
citizens in this country, and I am talking specifically about children, 
Mr. President.
  So, Mr. President, within that context, let me simply move forward 
and talk a little bit about some of these projections, because they are 
frightening. I want people in the country to know about them, and I 
want my colleagues to understand the context of this amendment.
  The context of this amendment, again, is that by 2002, on present 
course, we could very well see 1,992,550 babies, preschoolers, and 
pregnant women who would lose infant formula and other WIC nutrition 
supplements. Women, Infants, and Children is what WIC stands for. By 
the way, as a former teacher, I argue that the most important education 
program in the United States of America is to make sure that every 
woman expecting child has a diet rich in vitamins, minerals, and 
protein. Otherwise, that child, at birth, will not have the same 
chance. These are the kind of cuts: 4,258,450 children would lose food 
stamps; 7,564,550 children would lose free or subsidized school lunch 
program lunches. Mr. President, it is not very easy for children to do 
well in school if they are hungry. It is a stark reality that all too 
many children go to school hungry. Mr. President, 6,604,450 children 
would lose Medicaid health coverage; 231,100 blind and disabled 
children would lose supplemental security income, SSI; 209,050 or more 
children would lose the Federal child care subsidies that enable 
parents to work or get education and training; 222,150 children would 
lose Head Start early childhood services.
  Mr. President, how interesting it is--I am not going to go through 
all the figures--that all of us in public service want to have our 
photos taken next to children, and the only thing I am trying to do 
with this amendment is to simply say that before we go too far, why do 
we not at least--consistent with the overall framework of this 
legislation--as long as we are talking about impact statements, why do 
we not at least say that committees, when they have their accompanying 
report--and quite often that is the case--have as a part of that report 
a child impact statement so that we at least know what we are doing. 
This is, from my point of view, a very moderate proposal.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President. In order 
that other Members of the Senate can have some sense as to what may 
take place tonight, we do have one vote that has been ordered, which 
will occur at 8:30.
  I ask unanimous consent that we designate that that will be the Levin 
amendment, at 8:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Further, Mr. President, it will be my intention to 
move to table the current amendment that is being debated, and at that 
point I will be asking for the yeas and nays so that all Senators will 
know that after the first vote occurring at 8:30, in all likelihood 
there will be a second vote to immediately follow.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object. I understand the Wellstone 
amendment is a second-degree amendment to my amendment. So it would 
have to be--
  If the Senator from Idaho would withhold.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I was about to ask unanimous consent that my amendment 
be considered as a second-degree amendment to the Gorton amendment. I 
do make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not. As I understand the unanimous-consent request--or the statement of 
the manager, it is that there would be a rollcall vote on the Levin 
amendment at 8:30, and immediately following that, a rollcall vote on 
the Wellstone amendment--excuse me, to vote on a motion to table that 
the Senator from Idaho intends to make on the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. That is correct. I will be requesting the yeas and 
nays.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Minnesota.
[[Page S1196]]
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from 
Minnesota for the courtesy of letting me interrupt.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Idaho, and I appreciate the 
work he is doing on the floor.
  Mr. President, I have to say to my colleague, whom I really respect, 
that I am disappointed and a little bit dismayed at what would be, I 
gather, a motion to table this amendment. Mr. President, I have a 
State-by-State projection of what could very well be the impact of the 
balanced budget amendment on children in the United States. This report 
was written by the Children's Defense Fund. I intend to distribute a 
copy to all of my colleagues, so they can see these projections for 
themselves.
  Mr. President, one more time, first let me start with some pretty 
amazing figures. I just do not quite think we are grasping this here in 
the Chamber, right here in this legislative body.
  ``One Day in the Life of American Children,'' was the Children's 
Defense Fund yearbook of 1994. I never heard anybody refute these 
statistics, by the way. I would like to persuade the Senator from Idaho 
to have a different motion. ``One Day in the Life of American 
Children'': 3 children die from child abuse in the United States of 
America; 9 children are murdered; 13 children die from guns; 27 
children in the classroom die from poverty; 30 children are wounded by 
guns; 63 babies die before they are 1 month old; 101 babies die before 
their first birthday; 145 babies are born at very low birthweight; 102 
children are arrested for drug offenses; 207 children are arrested for 
crimes of violence; 340 children are arrested for drinking or drunken 
driving. I could go on and on and on.
  Mr. President, again, here are some figures that I have used: Every 5 
seconds a child drops out of school in the country; every 30 seconds a 
child is born into poverty; 1 out of 5 children in the country today is 
poor, going on 1 out of 4; 1 out of every 2 children of color are poor; 
every 30 seconds a child is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a baby 
is born severely underweight. I combine these with these figures.
  Now we are talking about a Contract With America, where, by the way, 
there is not one word or one sentence in this Contract With America 
that calls on any large financial institution, any large corporation, 
to make any sacrifice whatsoever. My fear--and I have to tell you by 
this motion to table that I fear my fear is being confirmed--is that 
what we are going to do is have deficit reduction. We can have deficit 
reduction without riding roughshod over children. All that I am asking 
my colleagues to do, on both sides of the aisle, is given these 
projections, 1,992,550 babies, preschoolers, and pregnant women would 
lose infant formula and other WIC nutrition supplements, in the year 
2002, given where we are heading--I could be wrong--I hope I am wrong--
but I could be right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I may have 5 more 
minutes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I have no objection. In fact, Mr. President, I yield 
5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, all I am asking of my colleagues is, 
given the direction we could very well be going, before we pass 
legislation, pass amendments, make cuts that are going to hurt children 
in America, those citizens that are most vulnerable, that could very 
well take the poorest of citizens in our country and put them in a 
worse position, if we are considering legislation that says we should 
consider the impact of what we do on businesses, on State governments, 
on county governments, is it too much for me to ask my colleagues that 
we pass an amendment that committees with their accompanying report 
have in that report a children's impact statement; that is to say, what 
is the impact of this legislation on children in this country? And, if 
not, then there could be a point of order lodged.
  I do not know how many of my colleagues right now are watching C-
SPAN, but let me just be blunt. Sometimes we do not know--I say this to 
my good friend from Idaho--sometimes we do not know what we do not want 
to know. Let me repeat that. Sometimes we do not know what we do not 
want to know.
  And I think this may be an example. The only thing this amendment 
asks us to do is to make sure that in our legislative work we have a 
children's impact statement. It could very well be that, as a result of 
where we are heading with this contract, where we are heading with this 
balanced budget amendment, we are not going to make any cuts in oil or 
coal subsidies or military contracts but we are going to make cuts in 
programs that provide basic nutritional assistance to children in this 
country. Is it too much for me to ask of my colleagues that they agree 
that we do impact statements in reports that accompany committee 
legislation?
  What is anyone afraid of? Why would anyone vote against this? What is 
unreasonable about this?
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I think we should have 100 
votes for this. This is a moderate proposal.
  The only reason that I can see why Senators would vote against this 
is because, in fact, the Children's Defense Fund's projections about 
what we are going to do in 2002 are correct.
  Mr. President, I would like to finish on this note. I am a U.S. 
Senator from Minnesota. The floor is where we bring amendments. The 
floor is where we do our work. I am not trying to put people in a 
politically embarrassing position on votes. Senators can vote any way 
they want to.
  But I want to say to my colleagues, I am going to fight hard on these 
issues and I am going to come back with this amendment, I am going to 
come back with another amendment on this bill--I am hoping I can get 
support for this amendment--because I want people in the United States 
of America to know the direction we are going in.
  There is too much goodness in this country to support these kinds of 
cuts. There is too much goodness in this country to end up hurting 
children.
  And now I have an amendment to just ask my colleagues to go on record 
to do an impact statement on legislation that comes out of committee 
with an accompanying report. I heard there is going to be a motion to 
table. I want people in the country to see that. I want people in the 
country to understand that I am going to come back over and over again. 
And I do not care whether any of this is ever used in any 10-second, 
15-second or 30-second ads. As a matter of fact, I am told that 
conventional wisdom these days is that it is ``not a winner'' to be so 
active on children's issues.
  But I do not believe that. I think people care about goodness. I 
think people care about fairness. I think people care about 
opportunity. And I do not think the citizens in this country, the 
citizens in Minnesota, think it is unreasonable that we do a children's 
impact statement on the legislation that we are dealing with and on the 
budget cuts that we are dealing with.
  Again, sometimes we do not know what we do not want to know. At least 
should we not be willing to include the children's impact statement? I 
hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment.
  Again, I do want to make sure that Senator Dodd is listed as an 
original cosponsor. I would be pleased to speak a little more, but the 
Senator from Idaho may want to respond.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, first, let me commend my friend from 
Minnesota, who is a strong and a great advocate for children, as I feel 
that I am, also.
  When he made the comment there at the end that you may not be a 
winner currently if you are a real advocate for children, I think he 
and I will agree that we will reject that notion. We need to do all 
that we can for children.
  Now I appreciate the Senator's concern and I appreciate what he said 
tonight. But I think we are taking different tacks in order to 
accomplish really what he is talking about. [[Page S1197]] 
  The committees that have jurisdiction over programs with 
jurisdictions affecting children would include this information on 
their report on relevant legislation. S. 1 is a bill about unfunded 
mandates on States and cities, unfunded mandates for cities and States 
to use scarce dollars that would otherwise be spent on discretionary 
programs, including programs to help children.
  Now, Boyd Boehlje, who is the president of the National School Boards 
Association, said:

       * * * the more than 95,000 locally elected school board 
     members nationwide * * * strongly support S. 1. This 
     legislation would establish the general rule that Congress 
     shall not impose Federal mandates without adequate funding. 
     This legislation would stop the flow of requirements on 
     school districts which must spend billions of local tax 
     dollars every year.
       Today school children throughout the country are facing the 
     prospect of reduced classroom instruction because the Federal 
     Government requires, but does not fund, services or programs 
     that school boards (must) implement * * *. Our nation's 
     public school children must not pay the price of unfunded 
     federal mandates.

  And he said on another occasion, Mr. President, that the very 
children that Congress is most concerned about protecting are hurt most 
often by these unfunded Federal mandates.
  This amendment would require all committees to prepare such a report 
on all legislation, including legislation dealing with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, which would have to file a report even when 
the legislation does not affect children. This amendment was part of 
another amendment the Senate considered earlier this year and was 
tabled by a vote of 56 to 43.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. In just a moment.
  Mr. President, again, this bill is a process bill. Those committees 
that have jurisdiction must include in their report the very aspects 
that the Senator from Minnesota has been pointing out.
  So again, it is with all due respect that I will be making the motion 
to table, but with a great deal of respect for the Senator raising this 
issue.
  I yield the floor.
  If I may inquire, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. President, first of all, just so my colleagues have a full 
understanding of what is at issue here, this amendment is not in 
opposition to this unfunded mandates legislation at all. And the fact 
that, Mr. President, that local school board official or others say 
that they think the unfunded mandates bill would benefit children does 
not in any way, shape, or form detract from this amendment. This 
amendment is actually meant to just support this piece of legislation. 
This amendment speaks not to the unfunded mandates bill, but this 
amendment speaks to where we are heading with our budget cuts.

  Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Idaho will hear from many 
locally elected officials, including school officials, who are very 
worried that if, in fact, we cut into all of these kinds of programs, 
starting with child nutrition programs, that States and/or local 
governments are going to have to pick them up--maybe school districts--
out of a property tax.
  Actually, what the Senator was talking about was kind of an apples 
and oranges proposition. This amendment is not in opposition to the 
unfunded mandates legislation. This amendment just says that if we are 
going to look at the impact of what we are doing on State governments 
or if we look at the impact on what we are doing on companies, we ought 
to look at the impact of what we are doing on children. That is all 
this amendment says. This amendment says that if a committee is going 
to file a report, and if the committee is working on legislation or 
budget cuts that affect children, then there ought to be a children's 
impact statement. That is all this amendment says.
  One more time, it strengthens this piece of legislation. It just 
gives the Senate the same concern about children, that we are at least 
willing to look at the impact of what we are doing on children. And Mr. 
President, these numbers by Children's Defense Fund, that are backed up 
by numbers by a lot of organizations, suggest we could very well be 
going in the direction with this Contract With America of cutting 
programs that provide essential support for the most vulnerable 
citizens in this country--children.
  I am saying before we rush headlong down that path, at least let 
Senators be intellectually honest and policy honest and have the child 
impact statement.
  Again, I do not really understand the opposition from my colleagues. 
We want to look at the impact of what we do on State governments. We 
want to look at the impact of what we do on businesses. But for some 
reason, we do not want to look at the impact of what we do on children 
in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Idaho has 3 minutes and 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I inquire of my friend from Minnesota, 
I have nothing else to add, but if the Senator would like the remaining 
time, I would like to yield the time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his courtesy. I 
yield the rest of my time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. 
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.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Vote on Amendment No. 170, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs now on agreeing to 
amendment No. 170, as modified, offered by the Senator from Michigan, 
Mr. Levin. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerks will call 
the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] 
and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] 
and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Helms
     Johnston
     Leahy
     Pressler
  So the amendment (No. 170), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
[[Page S1198]]
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if we can have order, I wanted to make a 
brief statement here before the next vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I submitted to the distinguished Democratic 
leader a unanimous-consent request and have not yet had an opportunity 
to talk with the Democratic leader. So, because I am not certain this 
will be the last vote, I suggest the absence of a quorum while we have 
that conversation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say that we have been working in good 
faith on both sides today and part of yesterday to put an agreement 
where we would be in session tomorrow but not have any votes, and on 
Monday, consider amendments but no votes before 4 o'clock. The proposal 
was that all the amendments that we had agreed to be put in this little 
basket to be offered by 3 o'clock on Tuesday. We thought that was fair. 
We whittled our numbers from 30-some down to 11, and I think on the 
Democratic side, it was 78 down to 42 or 43. Some of those may or may 
not be offered. We are unable to get that agreement, unfortunately.
  I will first ask unanimous consent that all remaining committee 
amendments be considered, en bloc, and agreed to and, failing that, we 
will have a vote on a motion to table the pending amendment, and there 
will be 5 additional votes on the committee amendments.
  So I ask unanimous consent that all remaining committee amendments be 
considered, en bloc, agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table, and that they be considered original text for the 
purpose of further amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I hope that 
the majority leader will present the entire agreement that was 
proposed.
  Mr. DOLE. I am happy to read it. I tried to summarize it.
  Mr. BYRD. I am looking at it here and I am sorry to say the summary 
does not reflect all that the agreement entails. I hope the majority 
leader will read the agreement, let us listen to it, and see if we want 
to agree to it.
  Mr. DOLE. That is fair enough. Let me do that. This is the agreement 
I proposed and that we discussed, as I say, on both sides in good 
faith:

       I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be 
     the only amendments in order to S. 1; that they be offered as 
     first or second-degree amendments, if Committee amendments 
     are available to offer them to, and that they be subject to 
     relevant second-degree amendments.

  Then I would either read or submit the list. You had about 40, and we 
had about 11.

       I further ask consent that all first-degree amendments must 
     be offered on 3 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, and that at 2:30 
     p.m. on Tuesday, the minority manager be recognized to offer 
     any amendment on the list from the minority side of the 
     aisle; that no later than 2:45 p.m. on Tuesday, the majority 
     manager be recognized to offer any amendment on the list from 
     the majority side of the aisle.
       I further ask unanimous consent that following the 
     disposition of the above-listed amendment and any remaining 
     committee amendments, that the bill be advanced to third 
     reading, and the Senate proceed to final passage of S. 1, as 
     amended, all without any intervening action or debate.
       I further ask unanimous consent that once the Senate has 
     read S. 1 for a third time, and the Senate has received the 
     House companion bill, it then be in order for the majority 
     manager to call up the House companion bill and move to 
     strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of 
     S. 1 as amended.
       I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
     vote on the Senate amendment, to be followed by third reading 
     and final passage of the House companion bill, and that all 
     of the action occur without any intervening debate.
       I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled for 
     tomorrow be vitiated, and that no votes occur throughout 
     Friday's session of the Senate.
       I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its 
     business on Friday, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m., 
     Monday, January 23, 1995, and that the Senate resume 
     consideration of S. 1 at 10 a.m., on Monday, January 23.
       Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered 
     throughout the day on Friday and Monday be postponed to occur 
     on Monday, January 23, beginning at 4 p.m.

  That would have been the request. And then I had some explanatory 
material at the bottom.
  I would say that the reason for 3 o'clock on Tuesday was to make 
certain that both policy luncheons would have an opportunity to discuss 
the bill and both the majority and minority side would have time to 
come back after the luncheons and say, ``Well, we want to offer the 
following amendments,'' and they could be offered by the manager or by 
any Senator who had an amendment.
  It seemed to me that this would have accommodated our colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle as far as tomorrow is concerned, and all of 
our colleagues as far as Monday is concerned until 4 p.m.
  I might further state that it seems to me--I know the Senator from 
West Virginia would agree that only the following amendments be in 
order, but they would not have to be offered at any time. In my view, 
that would mean if we would debate those amendments, 40 or 50 
amendments, we could debate those the next 30 days. So we wanted some 
cutoff time. After that time, no amendments could be offered.
  It is an agreement we have entered into many, many times in the past. 
In fact, we have entered into agreements in the past where we said all 
amendments must be disposed of by a certain hour.
  But that is the essence of the agreement. I hope that it might be 
acceptable to our colleagues on the other side. But if not, then I will 
proceed, as I have indicated, with the vote on the pending amendment, a 
motion to table that, plus a motion to table each of the committee 
amendments. And I believe there are four remaining. So there would be 
four votes on the motion to table committee amendments.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from West Virginia 
reserves his right to object.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for reading 
the request that has been presented to me.
  First of all, let me say I think we are shortcutting the legislative 
process too much. Let me be specific in two or three instances here.

       All first-degree amendments must be offered by 3 p.m. on 
     Tuesday, January 24, and that at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, the 
     minority manager be recognized to offer any amendment on the 
     list from the minority side of the aisle, and that no later 
     than 2:45 p.m. on Tuesday, the majority manager be recognized 
     to offer any amendment on the list from the majority side.

  Now what does that mean, ``offer any amendment on the list''? I do 
not have any amendment that I consider just to be a minor, 
inconsequential amendment. If I have an amendment, I consider it 
important enough that I be here to offer my own amendment. This is not 
the legislative process in accordance with the rules.
  I do not know what that means--``must be offered.'' If I offer an 
amendment, I may want to take 2 or 3 hours on it. If somebody else 
offers an amendment, I may want to offer an amendment in the second 
degree to it. We have had too much of this business of accommodations. 
We have streamlined this process to the point that Senators are going 
to lose the knowledge of their responsibilities here. We do not have 
the responsibility to shortcut this process. We do not have the 
responsibility to put it on automatic pilot. We have a responsibility, 
as Senators, to be here, to call up our amendments and not be under the 
gun to have to call up 30 or 40 amendments by 3 o'clock next Tuesday or 
Wednesday or whatever it is.
  We have fallen into that habit. Our business as Senators is to be 
here and [[Page S1199]] be here at work. We are very early in the 
session. I do not think we have to operate under the gun like this.
  I am very willing to have a listing of amendments. We have done that 
many times. I think that would be an accommodation, if one wants to 
call it an accommodation, to every Senator, that we have a list of 
amendments and know what is going to be called up.
  But this idea of having the minority manager offer any amendments on 
the list from the minority side, and the majority manager--and I trust 
them both; this is not anything against the managers at all. They are 
both here and they are doing a good job. They are carrying out their 
responsibilities. If they can be here to offer amendments, why cannot 
Senators who are the authors of the amendments be here to offer them?
  Mr. DOLE. We would be happy to change that. We put that in just to 
accommodate, to make it more efficient. But we would be happy to change 
that.
  Mr. BYRD. We have too much efficiency now. The constitutional framers 
did not create the United States Senate to be an efficient 
organization. The Senate was intended to be a second House in which the 
Members would have longer terms and thus be more independent in their 
votes; where legislation passed by the House in a hurry could cool off; 
where it could be meticulously studied, thoughtfully amended, 
reasonably agreed to or rejected.
  I know the impulse here is to ram things through. Thank God for the 
U.S. Senate. One Senator can stand as long as he is able to stand on 
his feet and object. I do not mind doing that.
  If you insist on our being here tomorrow and our colleagues want to 
go to a retreat, you will not be interrupted by any rollcall. I will 
get you away and I will talk all day. So do not let that be a 
compelling gun to your temple.
  Let us do our business here as we are expected to do it by the people 
who sent us here. Let us carry out our responsibilities to offer the 
amendment.
  What does it mean to offer an amendment? How is my manager going to 
call up 20 amendments?
  Mr. DOLE. We hope they would not call up all the amendments.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, all the amendments may not be called up.
  We made excellent progress today. The Senate has worked its will 
today in an orderly fashion. Amendments have been ably debated, 
carefully studied. That is the process we ought to continue on.
  Senators ought to know the rules. Too many Senators do not know the 
rules. They do not know what offering an amendment means.
  I may want to offer an amendment. I may want to talk on it a while. 
Why should I be bound by this? I should not be hemmed in and fenced out 
with respect to an orderly process by which I can debate my amendment 
at length. That is what we signed up for when we came to this Senate.
  I would not have given my unanimous consent to taking up this bill if 
I had not been misled by promises which were made in good faith; no 
intention to mislead anyone. But I gave consent to take up this bill on 
the promise that there be a committee report the next morning. The 
committee report did not appear, but I had already given my consent to 
take it up. Had I known the committee reports were not going to be 
available, I would not have given my unanimous consent. So let Members 
take our time. We want to have a cloture vote; well, that is in 
accordance with the rules. Let Members go by the rules here. Let 
Members slow down here a little bit. Let Members know what we are 
doing.

  Then, after all these amendments have been disposed of, the bill will 
be advanced to third reading and the Senate will proceed to final 
passage, all without any intervening action or debate.
  Suppose I, in my view, once we have gotten through this amendment 
process, feel that there ought to be some more talk on this bill? Any 
Senator may be displeased with the action that is taken on amendments 
in the intervening time. Why should he be gagged? I say to my own 
leader over here, I apologize. He is doing his level best to press this 
legislation forward in an orderly way. He was kind enough to come to me 
with this agreement.
  I do not understand this business of letting the majority manager or 
the minority manager call up all first-degree amendments, must be 
offered by 3 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday. What is meant by ``offered''? All 
first degree amendments must be offered by 3 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday. 
We are supposed to be out tomorrow. That only leaves Monday, and up to 
3 o'clock on Tuesday. Then on Monday, by a certain time.
  Mr. DOLE. By 4 o'clock on Monday. Votes will occur after 4 o'clock.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, any votes ordered throughout the day on Friday.
  Mr. DOLE. Or Monday.
  Mr. BYRD. Or Monday. Friday and Monday, be postponed to occur.
  So we will set up votes. Sometimes in the legislative process, the 
necessity for offering a second-degree amendment does not arise in 
advance. I just think that we are getting in too much of a hurry on 
this important issue. The number is S. 1. Obviously, it is an important 
bill.
  I know some Senators may be unhappy with me, but I am sorry. I think 
we need to slow down. If we want to enter into a list of amendments, 
that is fine. We have done that before. But I have seen this Senate 
deteriorate, one reason being this very thing, entering into agreements 
like this that relieve Members of our responsibilities to be here on 
this floor and do our own work, doing it painstakingly and carefully.
  I am not going to agree to this. This is too important a bill. We 
have the Contract With America. Here is my ``Contract With America'' 
right here, the Constitution of the United States. I am not going to 
roll over and play dead. If my friends feel that standing up for the 
rights of the minority and an orderly legislative process calls for my 
expulsion from the Senate, then let the Senate proceed.
  I say what I have said with respect to the majority leader. I told 
our friends over here earlier while we were on the debate, cutting down 
on the filibuster, that that leader over there is tough. Wait and see. 
He will use the rules on me. And I respect that and I admire that. And 
I also respect the fact that I can stand up, and I have a right to 
oppose those efforts to the limit of whatever rights and powers that I 
have.
  This is just jamming and ramming legislation through. The American 
people out there do not want that done. We have time. It is only the 
19th of January. What is all the rush? The Senate will be in session, 
it says, on Friday, in order for Members to offer amendments contained 
in a list.
  List? Who is going to know? If I offer an amendment on the list, who 
will be here to listen to me? They may not listen here on the floor, 
but they may be over in their house and know what is going on. They 
follow the debate, and their staff hears, as well. What kind of 
legislation is this when the Senate allows itself to come in on Friday, 
and no one will be listening to Senators, just come in and offer your 
amendments, and all the amendments have to be offered by a certain time 
on Monday or Tuesday?
  What does offering the amendment mean? Does it just mean leaving 
amendments at the desk? What parliamentary statute does offering an 
amendment give them, except when it is done in accordance with the 
rule? When I get recognized, Mr. President, I send an amendment to the 
desk. That is offering an amendment. But I am not going to have any 
Senator stand up here and offer 15, 20, 30, or 50 amendments just to 
offer them, no action taken on them. What happens to them when Senators 
just offer amendments? What happens to them if no action is taken? How 
do we get rid of one amendment and go to the next?
  Senators who have been around here a while who know how the process 
works, answer that question for me. Somebody tell me. I stand up here 
as the manager of the bill. I am going to offer 20 amendments. What 
does that mean? Does that mean sending 20 amendments up there en bloc? 
I do not know what that means in that context. I know what it means to 
offer an amendment under the rules.
  Now, Mr. President, I apologize to the majority leader and my 
colleagues for detaining them. I object to the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
[[Page S1200]]
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection to listing the 
amendments, and there may be some other agreement that could be worked 
out. I cannot agree to this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say first of all, the Senator is 
certainly within his rights. I have no quarrel with that, and never 
have. Certainly, the Senator from West Virginia or any other Senator on 
either side has that right.
  I did want to indicate we have had 15 votes on this bill. We started 
Thursday, January 12, at 10:30 a.m. Up until about 6 o'clock, we had 
had approximately 25 hours of debate; the Democrats used 15 hours, the 
Republicans 10. But in the 15 votes taken on this bill, 5 were 
unanimous, and 3 were sense-of-the-Senate. I think we have only really 
voted on two or three amendments to the bill.
  We were getting a list today of 78 or 80, and not many were even 
relevant. But few were germane. And then our list was some 30 
amendments. We whittled our list down to 11. There are still 40-some on 
the other side.
  It seems to me that the Senator from West Virginia has exercised his 
rights and will continue to exercise his rights. And I have no quarrel 
with that.
  We must do what we must do as the majority, to try to move the bill 
along. It is not going to be easy. So I have asked unanimous consent 
that we just agree to that, and that has been objected to. So I would 
propose another unanimous-consent request and see if we might be able 
to save some time; that it be in order for me to table the Gorton 
amendment and the four remaining committee amendments en bloc, and one 
vote count as five rollcall votes.
  Mr. BYRD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have tried by consent to have them agreed 
to. We have tried by consent to have one vote count as five. And, 
failing that, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the pending 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the 
motion to table.


                 Amendment No. 171 to Amendment No. 30

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Wellstone]. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] 
and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Helms
     Johnston
     Leahy
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 171) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the vote 
on the next four amendments be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. And I move to table the Gorton amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, after the Senator gets his yeas and nays, 
will he withhold his motion to table a minute that I might ask him a 
question?
  Mr. DOLE. Pardon?
  Mr. BYRD. After the Senator gets his yeas and nays, will he withhold 
his motion?
  Mr. DOLE. Oh, yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes notwithstanding that debate is not allowed on a tabling motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Let me ask of the distinguished majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader.


                       unanimous-consent request

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only amendments in order to S. 1, that they 
be offered as the first- or second-degree amendments if the committee 
amendments are available to offer them to, and they be subject to 
relevant second-degree amendments.
  I will send the list of the amendments to the desk.
  The amendments are as follows:

                     Democratic Amendments to S. 1

       Bingaman:
       (1) Relevant.
       (2) Relevant.
       (3) Relevant.
       Boxer.
       (1) Sensitive subpopulations.
       (2) Immigration costs.
       (3) Child porn/abuse/labor exclusion.
       Bradley:
       Relevant.
       Byrd:
       (1) Relevant.
       (2) Relevant.
       (3) Relevant.
       Dorgan:
       (1) Metric conversion.
       (2) Federal Reserve.
       (3) C.P.I.
       Ford:
       (1) Imposing standards on House.
       (2) Imposing standards on House.
       (3) Imposing standards on House.
       Glenn/Kempthorne:
       (1) Relevant.
       (2) Relevant.
       (3) Relevant.
       (4) Relevant.
       Graham:
       (1) Immigration.
       (2) Fund allocation.
       (3) Relevant.
       Harkin:
       (1) Relevant.
       (2) Relevant.
       Hollings:
       (1) Relevant.
       (2) Sense of Senate Balanced budget.
       Johnston:
       Relevant.
       Kohl:
       Relevant.
       Lautenberg:
       Relevant.
       Levin:
       (1) Relevant.
       (2) Relevant.
       (3) Relevant.
       (4) Relevant.
       (5) Relevant.
       (6) Relevant.
       (7) Relevant.
       (8) Relevant.
       (9) Relevant.
       (10) Relevant.
       Moseley-Braun:
       Relevant.
       Moynihan:
       Relevant.
       Murray:
       (1) Hanford.
       (2) CBO.
       (3) CBO.
       Wellstone:
       (1) Relevant.
       (2) Relevant.
       (3) Sense of Senate Children's impact.
       (4) Children's impact statement.
       (5) Relevant.

                Republican Unfunded Mandates Amendments

       McCain: Appropriations point of order. [[Page S1201]] 
       Gramm: 60-vote point of order.
       Gramm: Treatment of conference reports.
       Hatfield: Local flexibility act.
       Hatch: Brown-judicial review.
       Hatch: FACA.
       Brown: SOS/Review of S. 1.
       Grassley: CBO vs. actual costs study.
       Grassley: 60-vote waiver redirect costs.
       D'Amato: Comptroller of the currency.
       Kempthorne: Manager's technical amendment.
       Roth: Chairman's technical amendment.
       Dole: Relevant.

  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I object.
  The question is on the motion to table.


                  vote on amendment no. 31, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to lay on the 
table amendment No. 31. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] 
and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Helms
     Johnston
     Leahy
  So, the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 31), as 
amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________