Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 11 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)

[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:

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.

____________________