[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1310-S1339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have to rise to comment on the statements 
just made by my distinguished colleague from Wyoming.
  I think we need to review what has happened here. This revisionist 
view that was just expressed of what happened last year, and what so 
far has occurred this year, is a little strange to me having lived 
through last year and what has happened this year.
  You know, we voted it out of committee. I was chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee last year. We voted out in August the 
unfunded mandates legislation. Senator Mitchell wanted to bring it to 
the floor. We tried to bring it to the floor. There was so much delay, 
I think we had 20 some cloture votes filed against the Republicans last 
fall. It was a scorched-earth policy and they were taking great pride--
some, not all--on the other side. Some absorbed what was going on to 
their credit. But on the other side there was a scorched-earth policy 
of, ``Don't let anything get through.'' And we found objection and all 
sorts of procedural matters being brought up just to delay, to delay. 
To say now that after November 8 there is some great mandate that says 
that we move forward on all these things that we considered last year 
and wanted to bring up and could not because of the Republican 
filibusters on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and now to blame us for 
not getting these things through, is about as clearly a revisionist 
view of what happened last fall as anything could be.
  The statement was made that the Democrats enjoy this kind of delay, 
and we are putting through what was referred to as CYA amendments. And 
I think we all know on the floor what that means. Those are not my 
words. Those are the words of the Senator from Wyoming.
  No one enjoys delaying anything on our side that I know of around 
here because most of the people on our side of the aisle are in favor 
of the unfunded mandates legislation. We just want to see it go through 
in a form that it can be administered and be good.
  It was said that we put out our press releases on this thing, and 
talked about how we ignored completely the fact; that the reason we did 
not have congressional coverage legislation last year and unfunded 
mandates last year was somehow the fault of Democrats. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. We had them on the calendar ready to be brought 
up. That is fact. That is not a revisionist view of what happened last 
year.
  Now somehow my colleague from Wyoming indicates that the Republicans 
are trying to force this and the Democrats are opposing it as though 
the Democrats were not for it last year, and we were being opposed by 
the Republicans last year.
  He talks about Democratic gridlock of the past. He says that November 
8 brought all of this home, that all the chickens came home to roost. 
Why bring up this litany? Well, he said the situation of the past week 
where the Democrats were somehow--and I think I wrote down the words 
correctly--were trying to continue their policy of being ``overlords'' 
of years past. Those are harsh words. And the ``stonewalling''--that is 
another word--``stonewalling'' of the Democrats, and that the majority 
would eventually prevail; and that the Democrats seem to think with 
their gurus that there is some political benefit to blocking unfunded 
mandates.
  Mr. President, those remarks are about as ridiculous as I can think 
of here after we tried last year to get congressional coverage and get 
unfunded mandates through and were blocked repeatedly because of 
procedural steps taken on the Republican side to block us even from 
consideration. We did not have time to consider unfunded mandates. We 
brought them out of committee in August.
  There were statements about we were trying to delay their train. No. 
That is not true. Let me just recount for the record so we get the 
facts straight. S. 993 was introduced last year in the Senate. That is 
what we were trying to get through. After the November 8 election it 
was felt that the House was probably going to come up with a stiffer, 
tougher bill than S. 993, although all parties, including the big seven 
of State, county and, local officials--the big seven different groups, 
as they are called--were in favor of S. 993 last year, and we had some 
67 cosponsors. We could have passed it, just like that, if we had not 
had the delay occasioned by the Republican's scorched-earth, do-not-
let-anything-go-through policy of last fall. We could have gotten it 
through last fall.
  But what happened then after the election this year? I will tell you 
what happened after the election this year. They said the House is 
going to come up with a tougher bill and we had better move our bill 
here to make it a little bit tougher so that perhaps the Senate bill 
can prevail, something the whole Congress can get behind and get passed 
because we need to deal with unfunded mandates.
 So I did not fight that. Our staffs all worked together and came up 
with some new proposals here, and there are some tougher mandates here. 
Maybe we have gone a little far in some of the consideration of our 
people that were one or more of the 67 cosponsors of last year. But we 
came up there with a new bill, S. 1.

  (Mr. THOMAS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. GLENN. Senator Dole, the majority leader, went before the 
Governors Association and said he thought this was important enough 
that he would make it S. 1, the prime bill before the Senate, to be 
brought up as the first bill this year. I agreed with that. I have been 
an advocate of correcting this unfunded mandates problem for a long 
time. We worked on this for the better part of 2 years with my 
distinguished colleague from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, the floor 
manager on the other side. I did not quarrel with that. But now we are 
being blamed somehow for not going ahead with this. That is just not 
right.
  But what happened this year? Let us follow this thing through. 
Because of the priority accorded this legislation, it was referred to 
committee on the following timetable: Voted off the Senate floor to 
committee; sent to committee. It was introduced on the floor one day, 
and sent immediately to committee with a hearing to occur the following 
day, with the agreement that the 
[[Page S1311]] markup on the bill would occur the next day--one, two, 
three; introduction, committee hearing, committee markup. Just like 
that, and bring it back to the floor in short order.
  Now what happened? We got it over and had the markup, and a lot of 
people had some legitimate concerns about some of the things that had 
been put into the bill when it became S. 1 this year--using the basis 
of S. 993, but going beyond that. There were concerns about this. So I 
requested that the committee markup not be done, as I recall, on a 
Friday. We asked that this be put off over the weekend so people could 
find out what the changes were; so we would know what we were voting 
on. This was not going to be a rubber stamp. There was no mandate that 
came out of the November election that said we now have to approve 
everything the Republicans now suggest because they are in the 
majority. We wanted to know what the changes were and let everyone else 
know what the changes were. That was the purpose of asking that this be 
put off over the weekend.
  So it was put off over the weekend. We had the markup on Monday. Then 
what happened? We went to the committee and we had a number of 
substantive changes--these were not frivolous or delaying items at all. 
They were amendments that we had prepared. I had some and Senator 
Levin, in particular, who did a real analysis of this legislation, had 
substantive amendments about how specific parts of this bill would be 
applied. He wanted to clarify some of those things. Do you know what 
happened in committee? In committee, we were not even permitted to 
bring up our amendments. We requested to bring up amendments and were 
told, ``No, leadership wants this back up on the floor right away and 
any amendments will be dealt with on the floor.'' We thought this was 
not the way to go. We objected and we had some rollcall votes on 
different substantive things. These were not delay items, they were 
substantive items to be brought up in committee.
  On a straight party-line vote, it was said, no; we cannot consider 
those things. Those will be considered on the floor. We were voted down 
on a party line basis. We got rolled on every single one of them. Then 
it was stated, ``We are going to send this to the floor without a 
committee report.'' The importance of a committee report--if anybody 
has ever read through one of these bills with the technical language, 
the whereases and therefores, and everything that makes it conform to 
the whole United States Code, to the average layman, it is virtually 
unintelligible, and to a lot of Senators, too.
  So what do we have? Normally, as a requirement, we have a committee 
report, and it is carefully written. It explains in layman's language, 
going through each section of the proposed legislation, exactly what it 
means, giving the pros and cons on it so every Member and staff member 
working on a particular piece of legislation, when it comes to the 
floor, will be able at that point to have an understanding of what the 
legislation provides.
  By and large, we rely on those committee reports. That is the 
importance of them. We objected to sending the legislation to the floor 
from the Governmental Affairs Committee without the committee report 
being filed. In fact, we thought it was important enough that after 
some discussion of it, and we were still being denied that right, it 
was brought up where we finally insisted on a record rollcall vote on 
it, and, once again, we got rolled--still with the provision that we 
could bring up anything we wanted on the floor. So over our objection, 
it was voted out.
  I understand that our committee chairman, Senator Roth, was under 
considerable pressure from leadership to bring this to the floor that 
day, no matter what. I appreciate his position on that. Let me just say 
this. I have been around the Senate now for over 20 years, and I was 
chairman of the committee 8 years. Never in the 8 years I was chairman 
did I ever have our majority leader say: I want you to roll this 
through committee no matter what, and bring it out to the floor without 
a report on any piece of legislation.
  Occasionally, we sent legislation from the Governmental Affairs 
Committee to the floor without a report, but only with the agreement of 
the minority, and then usually only on bills that were comparatively 
innocuous and not major pieces of legislation, as this is.
  This is landmark legislation. This changes the way we have operated 
for 60 years and starts moving things back in a different direction, to 
a different Federal responsibility, a different relationship, Federal, 
State, and local. That is the reason I call this landmark legislation. 
It makes the first steps--it is the first major piece of legislation 
that makes steps in that direction.
  What happened? We got to the floor, the bill is called up, and all at 
once there is a move to try to curtail amendments, keep them to a 
minimum, saying ``We have to get this through; we have to beat the 
House,'' as though this was a legislative drag race, and more important 
than the substance of this legislation.
  I predicted in committee before this was voted out--first, I will 
give a little bit of background. Usually, in committee, you try to take 
care of all of the substantive amendments anybody has and they are 
focused on that piece of legislation. Usually, you do not have a lot of 
extraneous amendments come up in committee because people are focused 
on that piece of legislation. We were not permitted to do that this 
time around. Then when a bill comes to the floor, if it has had all 
that kind of due consideration in committee, what happens on the floor? 
Then you are on good grounds to say we have dealt with the substantive 
matters as we see it in committee, and we brought this out as a pretty 
good, clean bill.
  If somebody really has something that deals with substance, let us 
consider it. But other than that, we are going to try to defeat other 
amendments that can be put on in the State, extraneous amendments that 
can be put in, because the Senate has no germaneness rules, unless we 
are under cloture or for certain applications on certain appropriations 
bills. But we are going to say that--we will try to say, OK; whichever 
side of the aisle puts on extraneous amendments, we have dealt 
substantively with this in committee, and so we are going to oppose all 
those, no matter how meritorious they might be on their own 
freestanding bill, if it was put in as such. We are going to oppose it 
in legislation on the floor.
  I predicted in committee that if we brought this bill out without the 
substantive amendments being taken care of in committee, this bill--I 
think my words in committee were that this bill was going to draw 
amendments like flies to honey. And it sure has. We got to the floor--
and I think it is important that everybody understand this so the 
remarks of the Senator from Wyoming of a few minutes ago are 
understood. His revisionist view of what happens does not square with 
the facts.
  We got to the floor and what happened? Senator Byrd objected to the 
fact that we had not had the committee report. I indicated the 
importance of that a few moments ago for legislation like this, which 
is landmark legislation. Senator Byrd very properly objected. He said 
that this was important legislation, he wanted to see the committee 
report. When could we have that committee report available?
  That is what the debate was about, for about 2 days here. The debate 
was not about the substance of whether unfunded mandates problems 
should be corrected or not corrected. The debate was about the 
procedure that was used in bringing this to the floor and whether we 
should have a report so all Members would have the benefit of the 
thinking of committee members and would be permitted to put minority 
views in that committee report.
  Now, in committee they said that they would put the committee report 
in the Congressional Record. We said, ``What about the minority views 
that usually goes along with it?'' They said, ``You could also put 
those in the Congressional Record if you wanted.'' That is a very, very 
poor substitute for our normal procedures here. That is exactly what 
Senator Byrd disagreed with and what we fussed about back and forth on 
the floor here for 2 days.
  At the end of that time was when the majority leader decided that he 
felt that there was delay on this and he filed a cloture motion. What 
did that do? What did that do? Just as I predicted in committee, it 
flushed out more amendments than anybody 
[[Page S1312]] thought. Why? Because if your amendment is going to be 
considered and cloture is going to be voted, your amendment has to be 
filed at the desk before cloture is invoked.
  And do you know what happened? We had 117 amendments--117 
amendments--put forward to try to beat that cloture deadline, largely 
because of the procedure that had been used up to that time. Now that 
really threw things in a cocked hat.
  I did not know where we were going at that time, because I knew that 
the Republicans--and both sides knew this--did not have the votes for 
cloture; did not have the votes for cloture. Did this mean, then, 
without having the votes for cloture with 117 amendments, was this 
going to kill our consideration of unfunded mandates? I did not know 
whether it would or not.
  It was in that context that I mentioned to my distinguished colleague 
from Idaho, who has been on this for a long, long time--and he and I 
have dealt very straightforwardly with each other on this--I mentioned 
to him, if things really got bogged down--and it was bogged down over 
the lack of a committee report and the fact we did have all the new 
provisions in S. 1 that had not been in S. 993--that this was going to 
delay things and it looked like we might not get it through the 
Congress at all--and I think it is important we are getting legislation 
through the Congress; I reiterate that I support this legislation, 
fought for it as chairman of the committee, brought it out of the 
committee last fall as S. 993--I suggested to my colleague from Idaho 
that if push came to shove and it looked like we were not going to get 
cloture and it was going to be a long stalemate on this and maybe even 
have to pull the whole thing down eventually, we might want to consider 
dropping back to S. 993 so we get something through. I think it is 
important we do that.
  And while the big seven that I referred to a little while ago 
certainly does want S. 1 more than they wanted S. 993 last fall--they 
were happy with that; now that they have gotten more, the chance of 
getting more, they are very much enamored of S. 1. I understand that--
any drop back in that position to S. 993 would have been something that 
they would abhor.
  I mention this only in the context of where we were in the 
legislative process at that time, with the possibility that there was 
going to be an inability of the Republicans to invoke cloture, which 
requires 60 votes, and they only had 53 for sure and what they could 
peel off on our side. But that meant they had to get another seven 
votes off the Democratic side and they could not do that, at least not 
in the early round on this. If it meant this was going to be delayed 
too much, then we were going to have to consider what we would do. 
Would we pull down S. 1, as I saw a possibility of at that time, and go 
back to passing something which everyone thought was adequate last 
fall, although they liked the additional provisions of S. 1 now? That 
was the context of where I talked to my distinguished colleague from 
Idaho about that possibility.
  The cloture vote was held. Cloture was not invoked. And so here we 
are, with all of the delay of the past week, with nothing having really 
substantively happened on this legislation.
  Meanwhile, while all this was going on, we did have a group meeting, 
both sides trying to define what amendments were important, which ones 
were not, who really wanted to put their amendments in or who had put 
in frivolous amendments of the 117 that we had submitted at the time 
before the cloture vote. Fortunately, that group finally made some 
progress on this. And so, after the Republican side did not invoke 
cloture, we fell back to what was reality, I guess, and said, ``OK, we 
will now try to get a unanimous-consent agreement that only about 60 of 
those ones that people said yes, they really wanted to put them in, 
only about 60 of these would be eligible to be placed in consideration 
as amendments on this legislation.''
  Meanwhile, we had gone through on the floor, during another 2 days or 
2\1/2\ days, we had worked our way through a number of amendments. But 
the way those had been structured, they had been submitted as second-
degree amendments by the parliamentary situation we were in at that 
time, so before we went to this unanimous-consent agreement, Senator 
Dole moved to strike through a series of five amendments that he 
proposed. We went through the stripping of everything we had done 
there. And that was probably the best thing to do. I do not quarrel 
with that.
  So now we start over with this finite list of amendments that can be 
considered, and those are all to be submitted by 3 o'clock tomorrow 
afternoon.
  Now, today, we can get on with these amendments. We can debate 
amendments today, but no votes will occur before 4 o'clock today.
  Why do I go into all this detail? It is beginning to get a little 
aggravating. I do not normally get up and gripe back and forth. I 
usually stay out of these back-biting things, where these inflammatory 
words are used here. And I think my record on the Senate floor would 
show that I only rarely get up and try to respond when some of these 
things are said. I leave it to other people who sort of enjoy getting 
locked into that kind of verbal combat, I guess, for whatever partisan 
purposes it may provide on either side of the aisle.
  But for my distinguished colleague to come in this morning and talk 
about us opposing this legislation when we tried to get it out last 
fall and were blocked by the Republicans; tried very hard to get it 
out. I was still trying down to the last 2 days of the session last 
year to get it out on a unanimous-consent request and could not do it. 
We had objections on both sides. The final objection did fall on the 
Democratic side, let us be fair about this.
  But the reason we got down to even considering it on a UC basis was 
because there had been this scorched-earth, do-not-let-anything-through 
policy on the other side that had prevented consideration of a lot of 
bills, of which this and the congressional coverage bill were two.
  To come on the floor and say that we are creating gridlock on the 
Democratic side and say that we are using tactics we used when we were 
``overlords of years past'' and to talk about the Democrats 
stonewalling this legislation is about the biggest revisionist view of 
history that I can think of.
  That there are political beliefs being pushed for unfunded mandates 
by our political gurus, our advisers, somehow advising us in this area 
that we are trying to delay--``trying to delay this train'' was another 
quote--that just is not true.
  The reason I have taken this time to lay out what happened on this 
bill is because I think it is important that everyone know exactly what 
has happened. This is not a filibuster of S. 1 this year. The 
filibuster, if there has been anything to be construed as a filibuster 
on the floor of the Senate this year, is objections to the ramrod 
procedures that were used to roll the minority in committee and not 
even permit a regular committee report to be sent to the floor with 
this legislation.
 Now, that was flat wrong. I have never seen that done. I have been 
here 20 years. I have never seen that done before on any committee I 
have been on where at the specific request of the minority, even a 
record rollcall vote that the minority requested, to try to say a 
report will accompany this legislation, did I ever, ever, hear the 
majority say, ``No, it has to go. We cannot have a committee report. We 
will just put something in the Congressional Record. If we want 
minority views they can be put in the Record. This is such a fast track 
we have to bypass everything. We are in a legislative race with the 
House of Representatives so we do not get behind the people in the 
House somehow.

  If this was some little innocuous bill that made no difference 
whether it passed or not or of very little importance, I would not 
think it is worthy of even standing up to correct the statements made 
on the floor a little while ago that I am responding to.
  This is not that kind of legislation. The days when I was growing up, 
days of the Great Depression, were tough days. Okies headed west. 
People headed for soup kitchens and so on. There was unemployment of 
over 20 percent for 4 years, 25 percent for 1 year. They were tough 
days.
  Families had taken care of families up until that time, a Norman 
Rockwell type of existence. In the days of the depression, people could 
not do that anymore. People were hungry. There were 
[[Page S1313]] soup kitchens. People were moving out of whole sections 
of the country because communities and States could no longer take care 
of their own and do it in an adequate fashion. Either could not or 
would not. What has happened? The New Deal came in. FHA was put in. 
There were a lot of programs. I will not try to detail all of those.
  Starting with that premise--that States and local communities were 
unable to take care of their own--was the premise of the New Deal, and 
it moved into a whole new area of Federal activity.
  Now, have some of the programs over the last 60 years built up and 
gone too far? I would be the first to say that certainly we should 
correct those. There is a move now to go back to let the States take 
over a lot of these things that the Federal Government has been doing. 
I think that is OK in some areas but not completely. I would not agree 
with all of it. We need to do this carefully to make sure that the 
social safety net that has been put together over the last 60 years and 
that people have come to depend on, we can say rightly or wrongly, 
depending on Democrat or Republican view, if that social safety net is 
just thrown out and we let some States take up these services and some 
States not, that will deal very unfairly with millions of Americans.
  Now, I am all for unfunded mandates legislation. I support it. I 
supported S. 993 last year and am a cosponsor of S. 1 this year. Do we 
need to consider it carefully? Yes, we absolutely do, to make sure that 
we do not do some damage while we are trying to do good and prevent 
these unjustified mandates. Many of them are being just heaped upon the 
States, heaped upon the States, at the same time, over the past 5 or 6 
years, that we have been cutting down on some of the programs--
community development block grants, things like that. We have been 
cutting down on programs that have sent much money back to help the 
States.
  So we have to do this very carefully. And to think that somehow the 
minority is going to roll over and play dead and say, ``Yes, whatever 
you want to do we will do it,'' without consideration of important 
pieces of legislation, important amendments to correct some of these 
matters.
  Let me just very briefly--and I know I am taking a long time and 
people are waiting--but let me just say this. Senator Byrd wants to 
have an amendment, which was listed the other day, which would say, 
basically, that as part of this bill where we say to an agency if the 
emergency is not there but there is less money available, the agency, 
then, can bring this up or can somehow judge how the money will be 
spent and so on.
  In other words, the question he raises is a good one. I am in support 
of S. 1. I repeat that again. What he raises is a question: Are we 
passing our legislative authority over to unnamed bureaucrats over 
there; and what guarantee do we have that they will not go too far with 
them. That is just one.
  I have a series of some of the things that were left out with regard 
to color and age discrimination. That was one. Another as to when the 
point of order would lie. Are we going to permit it on every single 
amendment? Are we going to have a point of order lie to begin with or 
at the end of the amending process before final passage of whatever the 
legislation is?
  There is some uncertainty as to who would determine applicability 
where we have a judgment is something a mandate or not. Is that 
justified by the way the bill provides now with the presiding officer--
for example, meaning the Parliamentarian--who would determine what a 
mandate is, or should that be by the Governmental Affairs Committee? We 
have an amendment on that. That is substantive.
  We have some that would clarify the differentiation between what 
would apply in a public sector--that is, governments--as opposed to 
what would apply in the private sector at the same time. We have 
another one that would clarify that where a bill is reauthorized from a 
past provision of law, a bill comes up at the end of its time to be 
reauthorized--as the bill is now, it is not clear enough; it says that 
this could not be challenged if it is over $50 million. We clarify that 
the $50 million would only apply if a reauthorization went $50 million 
beyond its previous requirements, which makes it compatible with the 
rest of the bill.
  Senator Levin has some amendments. He wants to propose that this is 
important legislation, maybe we ought to sunset it so we are forced to 
reconsider the implementation at the end of a certain time period. He 
would have another one that, if a committee determines that there is a 
significant competitive disadvantage to the private sector--for 
instance, where there are competing electric generating plants between 
the government and private sectors--should we clarify whether we are 
beginning to have to move in and subsidize a requirement on the public 
sector and not do the same thing on the private sector, which would 
give a major advantage in some areas of light generation, sewer 
provision, water, whatever, where there are competitive interests 
between public and private businesses. I think that should be corrected 
also.
  We have a number of others here. I will not go through the rest of 
them. I want to show that these are substantive.
  Now, some put in over on the Republican side deal with judicial 
review, when there is any question about a particular provision of the 
bill, if a person could file suit in Federal court right off the bat. 
Can we figure any way to possibly bring the Government to a halt faster 
than that? By allowing everybody that disagreed with a particular item 
to say, ``We will file suit.'' What is substantive is the point I am 
making. I do not want to argue the merits. It is substantive. That 
would be proposed by Senator Brown, I believe.
  Motor-voter has been brought up again as a cost to the States. We 
will have to go through motor-voter. Is that substantive? It certainly 
is.
  Impact analysis for independent agencies by Senator Domenici would 
ensure analysis for impacts included for certain independent regulatory 
agencies as FCC, FERC, FTC, and the Interstate Commerce Commission.
  One on our list at this point that Senator Gramm may bring up is an 
amendment requiring three-fifths of the Senate, making it much more 
difficult to waive a point of order and get on with consideration of a 
certain bill.
  CBO estimates on conference reports would be required by another 
amendment.
  Senator Grassley has one that is on our list, at this point at least, 
and I do not know whether he intends to push it, which would extend 
application of the act to past and current mandates. I do not know, if 
we went back on all previous Federal mandates without some limitation, 
I do not know how many trillion dollars that might involve. That is an 
amendment and it certainly is substantive.
  I will not go on with these. There are a number of others like this. 
The point I want to make by listing just some of these is that these 
are very substantive amendments. They are things that are important to 
iron out so that this landmark legislation, when it is enacted--I hope 
it will be enacted--is done with all the best thinking of the Senate 
and the House of Representatives so it can be as workable as possible, 
can be used for, really, changing the direction of the relationship 
between the Federal, State, and local governments.
  Now, Mr. President, there are some others that I could list here 
also, but I will not go through them. That is the reason I wanted to go 
through this and explain exactly what happened and how we got to where 
we are. And the fact of the argument so far, the debate back and forth, 
has been about 90 percent on consideration of procedure and whether we 
are adequately protecting everyone who might want to make substantive 
changes to this piece of legislation, changes that might be very 
valuable and be good and that all the big seven and everybody can agree 
with are good.
  And so being prevented from doing that in committee and the attempt 
made here to push very rapidly once we got to the floor, that has been 
the heart of the debate so far. That has been the disagreement so far.
  So when I hear words that the Democrats are the ones delaying--it is 
Democratic gridlock; it is just Democrats trying to be ``overlords of 
years past,'' we are trying to stonewall--nothing could be further from 
the truth. I do not care how many statements are made on the floor to 
that effect.
  [[Page S1314]] The statements that were made previously which 
triggered my response here just were flat not true. I know from my 
personal experience in caucuses on this side, what happened in 
committee last year, and having been in committee this year where this 
big, unnecessary push was made to push this stuff through too fast. We 
need to consider this. It is very, very important legislation. I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I have listened to what my friend from Ohio has said. 
I listened to what my friend from Wyoming had said. I just go back to 
what I am trying to say, and that is, just as one of the critical 
elements of the Senate bill before us, S. 1, is the fact that it is not 
retroactive. I hope that we will refrain from being retroactive on the 
history of what may or may not have happened with this bill, that bill, 
what this side did, what that side did.
  One of the benefits of S. 1 is the fact that there are 63 Senators 
who sponsor this bill. I am proud to be a primary sponsor, but I would 
not be here if I had not had the tremendous assistance of the Senator 
from Ohio, and I would not be here if we did not have, during the 
recess, the great assistance of Senator Roth, Senator Domenici, and 
Senator Exon. Just in naming those individuals, I think we all realize 
it is bipartisan. So here is an opportunity for this new Congress to 
take up this vehicle which has been developed in a bipartisan fashion. 
It is what our partners in the State and local and tribal governments 
have said they want. It is what the private sector says they want.
  So I ask all--and I am speaking to my side also--let us start looking 
forward and not backward so that we can move this. I am committed to 
the passage of S. 1, and I appreciate what the Senator from Ohio said 
as to why he was discussing S. 993. But I think we all agree that is 
not an option at this point.
  This is the legislation for this Congress to consider, to pass, and 
we will take what time is necessary through the amendment process to 
perfect this so that a majority of Senators will know that this is 
exactly what should come out of this body.


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 
30 minutes for debate on the pending amendment, to be equally divided 
in the usual form; and that no amendments be in order prior to the 
disposition of the pending amendment; and that following the 
conclusion, or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on or 
in relation to the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho retains the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Was a question put to me?
  Mr. REID. I was just attempting to seek recognition.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I should point out that apparently 
there has been an agreement that there will be no votes until 4 p.m. 
tomorrow, so that any votes that we establish will have to be after 4 
o'clock tomorrow.
  Mr. GLENN. The 4 o'clock limitation was 4 o'clock today, was it not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the 4 o'clock 
applies to tomorrow.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold?
  Mr. GLENN. I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wonder if I could go ahead with my 
statement and they can work out the problem.
  Mr. GLENN. That will be agreeable to the Senator from Ohio and the 
Senator from Idaho with the provision the Senator's remarks not be in 
the middle of our conversation about when the votes are going to occur.
  Mr. REID. My remarks are on the amendment that is pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am in support of the legislation now 
before this body. I listened closely to what the Senator from Ohio and 
the Senator from Idaho said, and I agree. This is bipartisan 
legislation. I not only appreciate what the Senator from Idaho said, 
but the manner in which he said it: That this legislation is sponsored 
by a majority of the U.S. Senate and, as a result of that, the 
legislation should pass.
  But one reason it will pass is that there is ample opportunity for 
amendment, and that is what is now going on. There are amendments 
pending. The amendment that is now before this body asks that the 
Mandate Commission analyze the costs associated with mandating States 
convert to the use of metric measurements. It does not prohibit the 
metric system or our efforts to convert to the metric system. It simply 
recognizes that these efforts cost money and this cost is often borne 
by State and local governments. This amendment requires the Mandate 
Commission examine these costs and report on their amounts.
  The reasons I support this legislation are myriad. But one main 
reason why I support this legislation is that I have worked for a 
number of years, going back to 1992, with Senator Nickles, from 
Oklahoma, on legislation that would require that when bills come before 
this body, there would have to be a cost estimate as to how much this 
legislation would cost.
  In addition to that, Mr. President, Senator Nickles and I would have 
required that before regulations were promulgated by a Federal agency, 
they would have to affix the cost to that regulation. That seemed 
reasonable. Senator Nickles and I worked on this for a number of years. 
In fact, it passed this body last year and was killed during the 
conference aspects of the legislation. The previous year, it almost 
passed.
  The legislation that Senator Nickles and I sponsored would have 
required the General Accounting Office to do the things I mentioned: 
Report on costs to consumers and business, impact on national 
employment, ability of U.S. industries to compete internationally, cost 
to State and local governments, cost to the Federal Government, and 
impact on gross domestic product.
  So the unfunded mandate issue has been approached in a number of 
different ways. The way that Senator Nickles and I approached the 
legislation was a way of handling the congressional mandate issue. This 
legislation, S. 1, is a more direct method, which I support.
  However, I believe that the amendment process is going to make this a 
better piece of legislation.
  The amendment that is now before this body dealing with the metric 
system is highly pertinent to this legislation. When Federal regulators 
say to State and local governments, ``You utilize the metric system,'' 
they are saying a lot, because without question, Mr. President, that is 
an unfunded mandate.
  What costs must the State of Wyoming bear as a result of changing all 
the road signs? It is a cost. The State of Nevada has the same problem, 
and every other State. Federal regulators may impose this requirement 
for the most well-intentioned reasons, but it can cost States a 
significant amount of money to comply. We must recognize the 
significance of requiring adherence to this new form of measurement and 
recognize that there are increased costs associated this transition.
  Are the costs necessary? That is what we are saying. These costs 
ought not be shifted to State and local governments, and that is where 
the cost is now being shifted.
  While the amendment does not address this, maybe they really ought 
not to be borne by private contractors also who do business with the 
Federal Government. And they also will have to bear this burden.
  The amendment now before this body that is pending would remedy this 
cost shifting by establishing a 2-year moratorium on any Federal entity 
requiring State or local governments to use the metric system of 
measurement. It 
[[Page S1315]] would allow agencies to continue pending projects if 
suspension of the requirement would result in a significant increase in 
costs.
  This amendment, like the underlying legislation, is really about 
unforeseen costs. It is about the unforeseen costs associated with the 
implementation of legislation that, if passed, would really be 
burdensome. And there may be some meritorious reason for the underlying 
mandate--unfunded, I might add, requiring the metric system 
conversion--there may be some meritorious reasons for that, but should 
we not know the costs before we decide the merits of that issue? Under 
this legislation that is now before this body, there is a mandate 
commission which will study these types of costs and we will better 
understand them in the future. Under the amendment now before this 
body, the Commission will be required to study the costs associated 
with the Federal Government's mandating the use of metric measurements.
  Metric conversion is costing my State money. If the Federal 
Government provides highway funds to Nevada, it can require that all 
work be performed in conformity with metric requirements. I think that 
is a waste of money. It require metric measurements regardless of the 
costs borne to carry out this mandate.
  We are building a new courthouse in Reno, NV. I think it would have 
been a shame, as will be the requirement in the courthouse we are going 
to build in Las Vegas, that they submit their bids using metric 
measurements. The Las Vegas courthouse will require that. The Reno 
courthouse that is now under construction did not require the 
contractors to submit bids using metric measurements.
  Mr. President, not only would this cost additional money for Nevada 
and the city of Las Vegas and the city of Reno, but it would also cost 
money to the local contractors. Indeed, this type of mandating 
needlessly drives up costs of construction and frustration of the 
people seeking these contracts. For these contractors that are unable 
to convert, too bad; their bids are deemed unacceptable because they do 
not employ a measuring system which they were never taught or never 
knew would be required in the first place.
  The State of Nevada and its cities are already suffering from the 
imposition of costly unfunded mandates. And one reason I support this 
legislation is because I hear from so many Nevadans about these costs. 
Look, for example, to a small entity like Carson City, NV. According to 
Price Waterhouse, the cost of Federal mandates for the fiscal year 1993 
is over $4 million; for north Las Vegas, NV, about $1.5 million for 
1993. These costs have consequences because State and local governments 
are required to pay for them. Other programs, local in nature, are 
basically laid aside because the money has to be spent on the mandate. 
There is a limited amount of money to go around, and therefore there 
are a limited number of projects they can undertake--worthwhile 
projects.
  Requiring metric conversion is just an added unfunded mandate. In 
north Las Vegas, the money that was spent in 1993 for unfunded mandates 
could be used to hire additional police to operate a safety key program 
for children. That is one of the things they want but have not the 
money to do; to improve and enhance maintenance of the waste water 
treatment system in north Las Vegas; provide additional parks or 
renovation of parks, maybe even hire some people to make sure the parks 
are being operated correctly and are safe.
  We could go on and on with the list of things that have not been done 
as a result of the unfunded mandate money that had to be spent. Why 
should we add the metric system conversion as another unfunded mandate? 
Because that is what it is. If it is important enough to do the 
unfunded mandate after the studies we require in the amendment, then we 
will go ahead and do it. We can balance whether or not we need 
additional police, more public works inspectors, improvement in our 
parks, all these things, or we could waive those. But if left 
unchanged, these costs simply will be used for things that the local 
governments feel are unnecessary.
  So, Mr. President, I congratulate and applaud my friend from North 
Dakota for his wisdom in being the author of this amendment. As soon as 
it was mentioned to me, I knew it was something I wanted to get 
involved in because it is the right thing to do. This is what unfunded 
mandates are all about. We have identified an unfunded mandate. Why not 
examine the costs of this mandate?


                     Amendment No. 180, as modified

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the support of my 
friend from Nevada, Senator Reid. Again, to restate it in one sentence, 
I am not opposed to the metric system. I am opposed to the Federal 
Government imposing mandates across this country on the metric system 
in a way that does not make any common sense. I guarantee you, without 
some intervention from this Congress in the past, we would already have 
had road signs replaced all across this country that tell people how 
many kilometers it is to the next rest stop because that is where the 
bureaucracy goes with a mandate.
  My only point is that I do not think we ought to spend taxpayers' 
money pushing a mandate that makes no sense. If the private sector 
wants to use the metric system to compete in the European countries or 
wherever, fine. That is what they are doing; that is what the market 
system would direct them to do. I do not want us to spend precious 
taxpayers' money doing things that do not make common sense, and that 
is the concern I have about the current mandate conversion act.
  Now, Mr. President, I visited with the Senator from Idaho, and I 
think the Senator from Ohio also understands--I visited with him as 
well--I am willing to modify the amendment in a manner that I think is 
acceptable to the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Ohio. I would 
like, if appropriate at this time, to say that my modification is at 
the desk and ask the desk to report the modification of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify it. If there 
is no objection, the clerk will read the modification.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 180, as modified.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent the modification be considered as 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 41, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (4) Treatment of requirements for metric systems of 
     measurement.--
       (A) Treatment.--For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2), the 
     Commission shall consider requirements for metric systems of 
     measurement to be Federal mandates.
       (B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``requirements 
     for metric systems of measurement'' means requirements of the 
     departments, agencies, and other entities of the Federal 
     Government that State, local, and tribal governments utilize 
     metric systems of measurement.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will simply observe that what I have 
done with this modification is removed the moratorium portion of the 
amendment but retained the portion of the amendment that will require 
the Commission on Unfunded Mandates to give us the information in the 
2-year study of these costs so the next time we come with this kind of 
amendment, we have the data necessary to support it.
  I do not expect to cease and desist in my efforts to prevent the 
Federal Government from leading in a direction that I think is unwise. 
I admit, and I think others admit, we do not know what this costs. That 
is the point of it. Retaining that portion of the amendment will 
require the study be done to give us the information so that we do know 
what it will cost, and in 2 years I hope we can come back and squash 
the requirement that exists for the Government to want to do things 
that are unreasonable.
  I might also say, in the middle of all this, we will intend once 
again to prohibit DOT from doing anything that spends the taxpayers' 
money to convert road signs in the meanwhile. So with that, I ask that 
the two managers of the bill support this modification.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I compliment my friend for moving in this 
direction. I think this makes a lot of sense. Since there are a lot of 
questions 
[[Page S1316]] about this, to do a study of it I think is fine.
  I would like to clarify in the legislative history here on the floor, 
though, as to whether it is the Senator's intent that the study being 
done will include the estimated costs? After all, that is what this 
bill deals with and unless the costs were going to be above $50 million 
it would not be a threshold item for this particular item.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is my intention.
  Mr. GLENN. In the remainder of the legislation, outside the part that 
was stricken, I do not see any specific reference to costs. It said it 
will consider requirements for a metric system of measurement to be 
Federal mandates. I would like the legislative history to show that 
would include in this study that will come back to us an estimate, if 
at all possible, of the costs to the Federal, State, local, and tribal 
governments.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is written in a manner designed to 
overcome any problems that would have been imposed by the threshold of 
the bill. This would require the Commission to study it irrespective of 
the threshold.
  Mr. GLENN. But I ask my colleague, is it his understanding this would 
include an estimate of the cost of executing this Federal mandate?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is the purpose of it. That is correct.
  Mr. GLENN. That is fine. I am willing to accept it.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from 
North Dakota because, again, as I listened to the points he has raised, 
this is exactly why we need to have a bill like S. 1. I listened to my 
friend from Nevada, and I will have to paraphrase, but very close to 
this: Senator Reid said that there may be merit to this unfunded 
Federal mandate, but should we not know the cost before we implement 
it? And he is absolutely right.
  That is why with S. 1, once it is enacted, we are going to have that 
process so Congress will know the cost, any adverse impact to the 
competitive balance between the public and private sector, before we 
cast our votes.
  Again, I appreciate what they have said. I think they are helping us 
to lay out the fact that there is a need and the fact, too, that S. 1 
fills that need.
  So I am happy to accept the amendment as modified from the Senator 
from North Dakota, and thank him for his amendment.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Dorgan's amendment, which seeks to address burdensome metric mandates. 
As my colleague from North Dakota has stated, metric requirements 
impose serious burdens on State, local, and tribal governments and 
offer a perfect example of the careless practice that the underlying 
legislation seeks to address.
  I became involved in the metric debate during the last Congress, when 
I introduced legislation that would have prohibited Federal agencies 
from requiring State and local governments to convert highway signs to 
metric units. At that time, the Federal Highway Administration was 
considering plans which would have, in effect, forced financially 
strapped State and local governments to cancel or postpone highway and 
infrastructure improvements in favor of metric sign conversion.
  Literally thousands of Kansans contacted me to protest this 
unnecessary and costly change and to ask why we in Washington write 
laws and then pass the costs along to State and local governments. 
Fortunately, their opposition and our efforts in Congress were 
successful in convincing the Federal Highway Administration to abandon 
its plans for metric sign conversion.
  While I was pleased with that decision, I remain concerned about the 
prospect of similar metric mandates and believe that we must act to 
ensure that their effect on State, local, and tribal governments is 
fully understood. This amendment would accomplish that goal, and I urge 
my colleagues to adopt it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 180), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would also like to note Senator 
Kassebaum, I know, has an interest in this issue. So we would like to 
certainly note that. And, too, in S. 1, there will be a process, the 
ACIR, which will look at existing mandates such as this mandate. So 
again we have laid out a process that I think will be effective.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 178

  (Purpose: To require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
  System to submit a report to the Congress and to the President each 
   time the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the 
 Federal Open Market Committee takes any action changing the discount 
        rate, the Federal funds rate, or market interest rates)

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

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 178.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 bill, add the following:

              TITLE V--INTEREST RATE REPORTING REQUIREMENT

     SEC. 501. REPORT BY BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     Board or the Committee takes any action to change the 
     discount rate or the Federal funds rate, the Board shall 
     submit a report to the Congress and to the President which 
     shall include a detailed analysis of the projected costs of 
     that action, and the projected costs of any associated 
     changes in market interest rates, during the 5-year period 
     following that action.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include an analysis of the costs imposed by such action on--
       (1) Federal, State, and local government borrowing, 
     including costs associated with debt service payments; and
       (2) private sector borrowing, including costs imposed on--
       (A) consumers;
       (B) small businesses;
       (C) homeowners; and
       (D) commercial lenders.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``Board'' means the Board of Governors of the 
     Federal Reserve System; and
       (2) the term ``Committee'' means the Federal Open Market 
     Committee established under section 12A of the Federal 
     Reserve Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might, I would like to describe very 
briefly this amendment. I know Senator Reid would like to speak on 
behalf of the amendment, as well, and I think there are a couple of 
other Senators, also. I would like to, following that, get a recorded 
vote ordered on this amendment. This is an amendment I shall not modify 
and I very much intend to get a recorded vote on.
  This amendment deals with the Federal Reserve Board. The mere mention 
of the Federal Reserve Board puts students to sleep, at least in high 
school and in college. Start to study issues of the Federal Reserve 
Board and monetary policy and you very soon have a class that is fast 
asleep. Yet, the Federal Reserve Board and its conduct of monetary 
policy in this country has a substantial impact on virtually every 
American. The Federal Reserve Board controls America's money supply.
  Why am I talking about it in the context of a bill on mandates? Very 
simply, because the Federal Reserve Board will meet in a closed room, 
shut the door, and make a decision about America's money supply and 
mandate--it has at least in the last six instances--an increased 
interest rate be paid by the American people.
  That is kind of the mother of all mandates, if you think about it. 
Every American will have their lives changed as a result of a decision 
made by folks who portray themselves as a bunch of chaste economic 
monks who get in this room and make decisions about money. What they 
are is a bunch of economists and bankers who find themselves a room 
down in the Federal Reserve 
[[Page S1317]] Board. They convene in the room, incongruously named the 
Open Market Committee, in a room that is closed. So I would like to 
call it the Closed Market Committee. Let us no longer call it the Open 
Market Committee. These folks go into the Open Market Committee in a 
closed room, lock the door, and make decisions about America's money 
supply. And at least in the last six instances over the last year, they 
have decided to increase interest rates. That is, as I said, the mother 
of all mandates.
  You do not enjoy the opportunity of saying, ``I am sorry, I disagree; 
I am not going to pay increased interest rates.'' Everybody pays them. 
The Federal Government pays them. I will bet there are not many Members 
of the Senate who know how much the Federal Reserve Board's six 
interest rate increases will have increased the Federal deficit in the 
coming 5 years. Any guesses? Somewhere about $125 billion.
  About 1\1/2\ years ago, we wrestled in this Chamber with this issue 
of deficit reduction. We had massive debates. The American people were 
involved. Some were upset and incensed and sending letters and calling. 
Others were supportive. We were trying to reduce the Federal deficit in 
a democratic way: Increasing taxes, decreasing spending. All of it very 
controversial, and all of it subject to great emotional debate in the 
open. But the Federal Reserve Board goes into a room, shuts the door, 
and in a secret process decides we are going to mandate six interest 
rate increases, and they have imposed an additional cost on serving the 
public debt of close to $125 billion.
  In other words, they took back with no public debate one-fifth of all 
that we did--one-fourth to one-fifth of all that we did--in this 
deficit reduction debate that we had in Congress.
  They did not ask us if they could do that, they just did it. But that 
is not the half of it. It is not just the $125 billion increase in 
serving the debt, debt service costs, that we will have experienced in 
the next 5 years. It is the private sector. Everybody who has a home 
with an adjustable rate mortgage is now paying more.
  I had a fellow come up to me this weekend and tell me he is paying 
$125 more for his house payment than he did a year ago. Why? Magic? 
Voodoo? No. The Federal Reserve Board, that is why. They made decisions 
that affect the lives of virtually every American. I mentioned what the 
public sector cost is, just for the Federal Government, of the 
decisions by the Fed, the mandate in interest rate increases: a $125 
billion increase in 5 years. What about the private sector? Mortgages 
they pay, all kinds of other consequences? Mr. President, $218 billion 
in increased costs over 5 years for the private sector.
  So the plain fact is the Federal Reserve Board imposes, by its 
mandate on interest rates, enormous costs on the American people. My 
amendment is very, very simple. No one--not the slowest thinker--can 
allege not to understand this. My amendment says when the Federal 
Reserve Board meets and increases interest rates--incidentally, they 
are meeting in the next week or so and some suggest they will probably 
increase interest rates again--they have a responsibility within 30 
days to send to the Congress and to the President their evaluation of 
how much additional cost they have imposed on, yes, the public sector, 
the Federal Government, State and local governments, and also the 
private sector.
  I asked Alan Greenspan in hearings some while ago: Do you, before you 
make these decisions, assess how much you are going to impose on others 
in terms of costs? If they do, it is not available to us. So I do not 
know. But I submit that they ought to. If someone will be making 
decisions in this country that will increase the Federal deficit by 
$125 billion in 5 years, or lay on additional costs in the private 
sector of $218 billion over 5 years, they ought to be telling us that.
  The Senator from Idaho, when he talks about mandates, or the Senator 
from Ohio--you can describe dozens of mandates--I defy anybody, and I 
am going to listen for the next week, I defy anybody under any 
circumstance to describe for me any mandate that comes even close to 
this mandate, comes even close to imposing $218 billion in added costs 
on the private sector.
 You will not find one. This is the big mandate. This is the big one. 
This is the one that imposes enormous costs, and it is done in secret; 
done really without very much debate. It is interesting. Very few 
people want to talk about interest rates in the Federal Reserve Board. 
Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Fed, came up here the other day, and, 
he said, ``I think that the Consumer Price Index really boosts 
inflation one-to-one and a half-percent beyond where it really is.'' I 
guess he said one-half of 1 percent to 1 percent. He said it overstates 
what inflation is.

  We have had 4 successive years of decreased inflation. This year it 
is 2.7 percent. If Alan Greenspan thinks maybe that is a percent and a 
half over where it ought to be, that means the real inflation is 1.2 
percent. Then I would ask him, if that is the case, what on Earth are 
you doing increasing interest rates six times putting your foot on the 
brakes to shut down the American economy and throw this country into a 
recession if inflation is at 1.2 percent? What on Earth are you doing? 
On whose behalf are you doing it?
  We have different constituencies in this country. The Federal Reserve 
Board serves it. I might say its constituency represents the large 
money center bank interests. In fact, the open market committee that 
goes into the room and makes decisions there are people who are voting 
on those decisions who are each regional Fed bank presidents that are 
appointed by no one that I am aware of except their private boards of 
directors which are controlled by bankers in their region. They are not 
confirmed by anyone. So they are making public policy decisions in a 
manner designed--I assume in a manner designed--to serve their 
interests. Do you think they will come to town and say, ``The heck with 
my board of directors, I could care less about those folks, and I am 
going to serve somebody else's interests?'' I have great trouble with 
the whole concept of the way the Fed has been structured, and the way 
it has been behaving.
  But my amendment in this circumstance is very clear and very simple. 
When the Federal Reserve Board takes action to increase interest rates, 
that is the big mandate in this country. Let us have them within 30 
days send a report to the Congress and a report to the President saying 
here are the costs from our assessment, here are the added costs that 
we have imposed on governments and on the private sector.
  I intend to seek a record vote on this. I would hope very much that 
it might be accepted. To those who are concerned about mandates, I say 
let us not be concerned about the little ones, not the nuisance 
mandates so much. Let us be concerned about the biggest one. Let us be 
concerned about the center pole in the mandates, the center pole 
Federal Reserve Board mandating mandates aside from the wisdom of the 
fact that what they are doing is completely out of sync with what they 
should be doing. When they do it any time in the future, it seems to me 
they have an obligation to report to us who will bear the cost of these 
mandates.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I note my colleague, Senator Reid 
from Nevada, is also going to speak on this issue.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid].
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to extend my congratulations to 
the Senator from North Dakota of course for offering his amendment of 
which I am a sponsor, but more importantly for speaking out about the 
Federal Reserve.
  For years I have sponsored legislation that would call for an audit 
of the Federal Reserve system. I have offered that amendment every 
year. Every year the legislation gets nowhere.
  I think it would be interesting to know about the Federal Reserve. I 
think we should audit the Federal Reserve. It is taxpayers' money that 
is being used there. But we do not do that.
  Senator Dorgan spoke out on the secrecy of the Federal Reserve 
system. He has spoken out on the Federal Reserve more than anyone that 
I know in either body. But even though there is no entity in the world 
that controls 
[[Page S1318]] our lives more than the Federal Reserve System, his 
speeches go unnoticed. And I am sorry to say that. People just do not 
care it seems about the Federal Reserve. Maybe it is because it is a 
subject that is not very interesting. It is not pornography. It is not 
murder. It is not an issue that deals with the Wild West water, 
grazing. It does not deal with issues that we talk about here a lot. 
But we do not talk enough about the Federal Reserve and the impact it 
has on our lives.
  So I acknowledge the work that my friend from North Dakota has done 
on this issue. I am sorry that his very lucid statement have received 
very little attention.
  I was thinking as the Senator from North Dakota was outlining the 
secrecy of the Federal Reserve System that maybe what we should do--the 
Central Intelligence Agency has received a lot of criticism lately for 
not doing a real good job; one reason maybe is that they are not secret 
enough in some of the things they do--maybe we should combine them with 
the Federal Reserve Board. What the Federal Reserve Board does nobody 
knows. Nobody knows what they are doing. It seems that everyone has 
some idea what the CIA is doing. Maybe we could combine the two. It 
might not be a bad idea.
  Mr. President, the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates six 
times since February 1994. If someone likes this legislation generally 
speaking--that is, we are going to try to stop unfunded mandates--then 
they should love this amendment. If the principle of unfunded mandates 
being stopped sounds good to Senators, then they should jump with joy 
and run over here and cosponsor this legislation because this really 
overshadows all other unfunded mandates because these go on all the 
time. Not only do they affect government because of the moneys that 
governments borrow, but they also affect the private sector 
significantly.
  There is not a person that is listening to this debate who is not 
impacted as a result of higher interest rates. It does not matter if 
they are homeless or making a multimillion-dollar transaction on Wall 
Street as we speak. Higher interest rates affect everybody in this 
country. What we are saying is that the Federal Reserve Board should 
provide a report to Congress and to the President about anticipated 
costs of changes in interest rates on the public and private sectors so 
we are aware each time the Fed raises interest rates of how much more 
we pay. We should have a little foundation as to what really we pay.
  This amendment requires the Fed to prepare a report. This report will 
detail the costs imposed by interest rate changes within 30 days after 
the Fed decision to change those rates. The report will include an 
analysis of the aggregate costs that interest rate changes would impose 
on Federal, State, and local governments. It will provide a cost 
analysis of interest rate changes on the private sector borrowing. This 
will allow us to see the increases in borrowing costs for consumers, 
small business, homeowners and conventional lenders.
  I am glad that there has been a rollcall vote called on this matter. 
I think it is important to people who are in favor of doing away with 
unfunded mandates--because they support the largest unfunded mandate we 
have in America today.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dorgan 
amendment regarding the Federal Reserve. Actions by the Federal 
Reserve, most notably the six interest rate increases in the last year, 
have a huge effect on our economy. In impact, it is an independent 
powerful fourth branch of Government, a branch of Government that has 
effectively been able to deflect reasonable examination. The impact of 
the Federal Reserve's actions needs to be better understood by the 
public and by the Congress. This amendment is a very rational and well 
thought out step in that direction.
  Many would argue that one of the most significant changes in 
Government policy was the passage of the 1993 Reconciliation Act which 
among other things reduced the deficit by $500 billion over 5 years, 
about one-third of the way we needed to go to get to balance. Dozens of 
articles appeared on front pages of newspapers as that controversial 
hard fought measure went through the legislative process. The $500 
billion sum, was in fact, an amount suggested by Alan Greenspan, the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Each component was scrutinized by some 
degree. Many parts of the measure involving less than 5 percent of the 
whole were bitterly fought over.
  In 1994, the Federal Reserve took what might be the second most 
significant Government action of the last 2 years. Six times, they 
increased the interest costs on everybody from the Federal Government 
and local governments, to families with mortgages and credit cards, to 
almost every business in the Nation.
  While many fought bitterly against the tax increases that were 
included in 1993 Reconciliation Act, there was barely a word from most 
about the huge tax increase that resulted from the Fed's rate 
increases. While the first measure cost a typical family under $20 a 
year in higher taxes, the second cost many modest income families with 
an adjustable mortgage over a $1,000 in a year, 50 times the impact.
  This wave of interest rate increases has been estimated to cost the 
Federal Government $107 billion over 5 years. And, the cost to the 
private sector is probably a lot higher. That is a huge impact with 
minimal public discussion on a governmental decision so significantly 
affecting both the Federal Government, local governments, and the 
private sector.
  This amendment would help us to understand the impact of the Fed's 
actions and that would be a significant improvement.
  The six increases in interest rates were largely justified by the Fed 
on the basis of their fear of rising inflation. In 1994, the CPI 
increased by a meager 2.7 percent, exactly last year's rate of 
inflation. When more volatile food and fuel
 costs were taken out, the rate increased by 2.6 percent, the lowest 
level of inflation since 1965. And, Alan Greenspan, the Fed's Chairman 
said he believed that the CPI was actually overstating inflation by .5 
to 1.5 percent. If he were right about the CPI, and I have my doubts, 
Greenspan has pushed a huge burden on our economy when he believes that 
inflation has been under 2 percent a year over the past 2 years.

  Where is this inflation that the Fed has been expecting?
  Now, there are indications put out by the Fed's rumor mill that they 
will raise interest rates for a seventh time by another half percent or 
more on February 1.
  The Fed says it takes a long time for the pain of their interest rate 
increases to work their way through the economy and cause the economy 
to slow down; that is, to cause enough people to be fired and for 
enough unemployed people to stay that way. It may take from 6 to 18 
months.
  I would like to ask: Is it logical to rush forward with a seventh 
increase in interest rates when we have not seen the impact of the 
earlier increases? If the Fed Chairman believes inflation has been 
running at less than 2 percent, I would think he would want to wait.
  I would think the Fed would not want the slope of interest rates to 
rise too quickly. Because the higher we climb, the harder it will be 
for the economy to have the soft landing that we all want.
  Some say that the Fed has an economic model that assumes that 
whenever unemployment drops to a certain point, it will put pressure on 
employers to provide some wage increases. And those wage increases will 
cause inflation. So, under this model, every time employment levels are 
good and people are working, the Fed fights to get that favorable 
situation reversed.
  The Fed seems to work to create a guaranteed minimum level of 
unemployment and to minimize any general increase in wages.
  I believe the Fed is, to some extent, fighting the last war.
  Some have suggested that the tremendous growth in discount stores and 
the growing willingness of consumers to use private labels creates a 
real difficulty of manufacturers and retailers to raise prices. Some 
people see a
 new culture developing in many manufacturing areas which place 
considerable pressure on suppliers to avoid cost increases and to 
develop new lower cost methods of producing goods. To some extent, 
gains in computer design are 
[[Page S1319]] providing methods to accomplish that goal.
  And, as our country is more and more integrated in a world economy, 
the ability to raise the price of many U.S. goods and the ability to 
seek wage increases not related to greater productivity are declining.
  Coming back to the analysis required by this amendment, clearly, this 
is important information that the public and policymakers should have 
about our economy and the effect of Federal Reserve actions.
  Lastly, I wanted to comment on why this amendment should be on this 
bill. The Fed's interest rate increases are a mandate, a mandate on 
every city, county, and State in the Nation that issues bonds. It is a 
mandate on every business in the Nation that has loans based on the 
prime rate. It is a mandate on every family with a variable rate 
mortgage and many other kinds of loans. As Senator Dorgan said, the 
Fed's interest rate hikes are the mother of all mandates.
  I commend Senator Dorgan for all of his work in this important area 
and urge adoption of his amendment.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I feel compelled to rise in opposition to 
the Senator from North Dakota's amendment--an amendment, which in my 
view is misplaced, unwise, and dangerously myopic.
  The independent role of the Federal Reserve in setting monetary 
policy remains critical to the long-term stability of this country.
  Cries for more public input in monetary policy decisionmaking 
misapprehend the necessary role of a central bank in our market system 
and jeopardize a carefully crafted balance between independence and 
public accountability.
  Public accountability, in contrast to public input, already exists 
under the current structure of the Federal Resource.
  The Fed and its activities are already highly scrutinized by both 
Houses of Congress pursuant to the Humphrey-Hawkins Act--and I dare say 
that Chairman Greenspan spends about as much time on the Hill 
testifying before one committee or another than he does at the Federal 
Reserve engaging in monetary policy decisionmaking.
  This amendment is not about public accountability, Mr. President. 
Rather, this amendment is about a trade-off between long-term stability 
and short-term gain.
  This amendment represents a rough attempt to influence monetary 
policy for short-term political purposes.
  And yet even if it were successful in its purpose--to try and keep 
interest rates artificially low--it would still be ineffective, Mr. 
President, because long-term interests rates are not determined by U.S. 
monetary policy alone.
  The Fed does not make decisions in a vacuum. Long-term bond and 
currency values reflect international confidence in the conduct of our 
monetary policy, not simply the Fed's pegged Federal funds rate. And a 
loose monetary policy, set through a politically influenced 
decisionmaking process would send a strong message to the rest of the 
world.
  It would basically be telling our international neighbors that we are 
more concerned with macroeconomic gain than price stability and strong, 
long-term economic growth.
  Mr. President, soft money means a soft economy. Adopt the view 
endorsed by this amendment and we won't have to worry about bolstering 
the Mexican economy through billion-dollar subsidies--we can make the 
peso look good by encouraging a lack of confidence in United States 
monetary policy and the dollar.
  This amendment is not only unwise and myopic, it is misplaced.
  It would force the Fed to report to Congress and the White House what 
costs are imposed on the market every time it raises interest rates. 
How do you define what comprises costs on the public and private 
sector? Do you net costs and benefits?
  Would the proponents of this amendment agree the way many of them did 
during the health care debate that the short-term costs are outweighed 
by the long-term benefits? It would appear so.
  Even if you could quantify such costs--which I nonetheless believe 
would be a specious exercise at best--this amendment is an unnecessary 
regulatory nightmare.
  Congress already has the ability to ask the Fed about the costs of 
raising interest rates and it has, both through committee oversight and 
by individual Member queries to the Fed.
  So what is the purpose of this amendment? To bog the Fed down in more 
reporting requirements and politicize its decisionmaking process by 
triggering the reporting requirements only when the Fed decides to 
increase interest rates.
  Mr. President, the amendment also misapprehends its populist appeal.
  It seems to me that on November 8 the American people were pretty 
clear about a couple of things--one of which is that they can rarely 
trust Congress to conduct the responsibilities it already has, like 
making fiscal policy.
  I'm quite sure that such a healthy skepticism for this body's 
abilities would certainly extend to any ideas of Congress extending its 
reach further into Fed monetary policymaking.
  I bet the American people would be much more interested in seeing the 
Congress report on the costs to the public and private sectors every 
time it votes to raise taxes.
  I like low interest rates, too, Mr. President, but I'm not willing to 
sacrifice the long-term health of our economy to obtain them.
  Mr. President, this amendment has nothing to do with unfunded Federal 
mandates, but instead is strictly about challenging the role of the Fed 
in setting monetary policy by making it more politically accountable to 
Congress.
  Costs imposed by rising interest rates are not unfunded Federal 
mandates. As I've stated before, the Fed can only do so much to affect 
interest rates, the market will influence the rise or fall in interest 
rates no matter what the Fed does.
  If anything, this amendment is about imposing new mandates by 
requiring the Fed to comply with new and extensive reporting 
requirements.
  Mr. President, this bill is not the appropriate piece of legislation 
for this amendment and I would urge my colleagues to support the 
Senator from Idaho's motion to table the Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. What is the present parliamentary situation? Is there 
an amendment to be voted on?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment by the Senator from North Dakota 
is pending.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Are we going to stay on that until 4 o'clock when we 
vote? Is that the ruling of the Chair?
  Mr. President, while I do have the floor, could I put up an amendment 
or how can that be arranged? Will there be no more amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may ask consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside 
the pending amendment so that I can introduce one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. I thank the 
distinguished managers of the bill.
  Mr. President, I want to talk about the biggest unfunded mandate of 
all, which is not just interest costs on the Federal debt, but the 
entire Federal budget. We just heard--and I want to join the leadership 
of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada in their concern relative to interest costs. I will 
momentarily put into the Record a table that will show my colleagues 
exactly where we are.
  Prior to that, let me speak to some of the problems facing our 
Nation. We are really in crisis, Mr. President, with respect to our 
fiscal situation and also in crisis in our cultural situation.
  We all know the litany: There are some 40 million Americans in 
poverty. Some 10 million are homeless, sleeping in the streets; another 
12 million children are hungry. The cities are a cesspool of crime and 
violence; the land is drug infested; the schools have turned into 
shooting galleries. Even more alarming, we now find that of those 
between the age of 17 and 24, 73 percent cannot find a job out of 
poverty. In sum, we are dividing into a two-tiered society, the haves 
and the have-nots.
  [[Page S1320]] The middle class that everybody seems to want to 
address is disappearing. Rather than offering up a State of the Union, 
rather than coming up with contracts premised on the dismantlement of 
Government, what we need is a plan to start the Government back up 
again, for it is only the Federal Government that can solve these 
problems. With all 50 States joining hands and pulling together, we can 
work our way out of this dilemma.
  Mr. President, our security is like resting upon a three-legged 
stool. We have the first leg, the values we have as a country, and 
those are very strong. We readily sacrificed lives to feed the hungry 
in Somalia; we sacrificed lives again trying to promote democracy in 
Haiti; and we are now willing to send earthquake relief aid to Japan. 
We, as an American country--not as a middle class or lower class or 
underclass or rich class--willingly sacrifice and give assistance where 
it is needed.
  Similarly, the second leg of our security rests on the leg of 
military power, and the strength of that is unquestioned. Finally, the 
third leg is that of our economic security, and that leg is fractured, 
in disrepair, and about to break because of the very litany that we 
have all enunciated on the floor.
  We act as if it is the best of times, and all we need to do is give 
to the various interest groups their wants. For those in California, we 
will now finally have a program on immigration after we just passed a 
multibillion-dollar bill on that subject. It makes a difference. But we 
have never even given the additional border patrols and everything else 
a chance to work, including the new offices that were set up. The 
thrust of such pollster-driven policies would be to say, ``We have not 
done anything,'' and ``Let us start doing something there,'' because 
California is important in the Presidential race.
  Of course meanwhile, both sides are trying their dead-level best to 
flatter the middle class with gifts such as tax cuts. Mr. President, we 
do not have anything to give. The tenor and tempo of the moment should 
rather be that of John F. Kennedy back some 30 years ago when he said, 
``My program is not a set of promises of what I intend to give the 
American people, but rather a set of challenges of what I intend to ask 
of the American people.''
  Rather than facing challenges and bringing reality, we are off on a 
toot, chasing around in a veritable contest, a foot race, if you 
please, trying to dismantle the Government and saying that the 
Government is the enemy. The truth of the matter is that the Government 
is a friend. We have valid programs working which need to be expanded 
upon--women, infants, and children feeding, 50 percent receive funding 
and 50 percent go wanting. But for every dollar I spend on women, 
infants, and children feeding, I save $3. For if I do not spend that 
money on nutritional supplements, I have, by account, an increase low 
birthweight infants. The average stay in an incubator for the low 
birthweight infants is 30 days, at $1,000 a day, or $30,000.
  Getting to the needs of the hour, we need to embellish the WIC 
Program and the Head Start Program. We can furnish the studies that 
show for every $1 that we invest in Head Start--not to the cities or to 
the States or to get it back to the people or to dismantle it and all 
the other gobbledygook they are giving us--Head Start saves $4.50 for 
every $1 we spend. We ought to extend that to the other 40 percent of 
Americans that are not participating.
  With respect to funding for the disadvantaged, half of those eligible 
are not receiving benefits, but for every $1 we spend there, $6.25 is 
saved. Biomedical research, which is a distressing thing to me, we have 
cut back under President Clinton's administration on top of the cuts 
that we have had under Reagan-Bush. But for every $1 we spend in 
biomedical research out at NIH, we save $13.50.
  Indeed, the Federal Government has a lot of good roles to perform. 
Welfare reform--you are getting another unfunded mandate, Mr. Governor, 
I can tell you now. Some will get welfare and some will not. Those 
recipients in the ``have-not'' States with the bigger burden will start 
moving to those ``have'' States. In fact, that is what brought about 
the Federal program.
  I can tell you, once they get to welfare reform and try to set up 
those jobs to make people work, no money is going to be saved. It is 
going to cost more. Welfare reform is going to cost more. Name the odds 
and I will take all bets.
  Similarly with health reform. Yes, we can slow down the growth of 
rising health costs, but the savings that we achieve through reductions 
in all of the entitlements will leave us far short of our goal. My 
point is while we may save some, we will not save enough. So, it is 
important that we come and start looking, if you please, at what we 
really need in this land of ours. And I will get into that on another 
occasion, because I want to address the problem of this unfunded 
mandate, the Federal budget.
  Mr. President, we need a Marshall plan for America. If we are going 
to have a capital gains tax cut, we need to have it for inner-city 
investment to industry, not just for the rich just to write off. In 
addition, we need to promote savings. We need targeted IRA's and 
incentives to promote investment in research and development investment 
here in the United States. With respect to technology, we need the 
advanced technology program, which is subject to peer review by the 
National Academy of Engineering and devoid of any political pork.
  Regrettably, you see some shouting in the contract that these are 
pork barrel programs. We have to get into competition with a 
competitive trade and industrial policy. We can go down the list of the 
needs, but we do not have any money.
  Looking at what is available, I find myself much like the famous 
character in ``Alice In Wonderland,'' where to stay where I am, I have 
to run as fast I can; to get ahead, I have to run even faster.
  Let me turn momentarily to the interest costs on the public debt. I 
can tell you, before Chairman Greenspan raised interest rates, the CBO 
estimated $311 billion for the 1995 gross interest costs on the public 
debt. Now, comes January, it has jumped some 28 billion bucks to $339 
billion and is projected to rise to $408 billion by 2002.
  So what I have tried to do in this particular exercise is to bring 
into focus the magnitude of our current fiscal situation. I have been 
in a drill now all this month with my staff and the best of minds. I 
have summarized it on one sheet of paper. And I will ask my staff to 
distribute this sheet to our friends on the floor and any others who 
are interested. Yes, statistics are boring, but it is a reality.
  We start, Mr. President, with reality check No. 1, that it will 
require approximately $1.2 trillion in spending cuts to execute item 
No. 1 of the Contract With America; namely, to balance that budget.
  Now, balancing the budget is not a new thing. I have tried dutifully 
as a Member--and Senator Domenici and I are the only remaining Members 
since the initiation over 20 years now of the Budget Committee--and as 
a former chairman, I have conscientiously tried freezes. I have tried 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings--which, incidentally, my colleagues, Mr. Gramm 
and Mr. Rudman, joined in abolishing in 1990 when we went from fixed to 
floating targets. We had the discipline. We needed to maintain that 
discipline, but in October of 1990, I guess it was--we will find out 
the exact date--at around 20 minutes to 1:00 in the morning, I will 
never forget making the point of order; the point of order was appealed 
and Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, for all intents and purposes, was abolished.
  Do not say, ``It did not work.'' That is what I hear is said in these 
meetings and seminars, that Gramm-Rudman-Hollings did not work. The 
fact of the matter is that it was not the law that failed, but rather a 
bipartisan failure on the part of Congress to meet the targets.
  The problem continues to worsen--and I emphasize, Mr. President, 
``worsen''--because if we had had the freezes that my distinguished 
friend on the other side of the aisle, the majority leader, Howard 
Baker of Tennessee, and I once offered, we would have a balanced budget 
this very minute.
  After failing with freezes, I then came with taxes. Now, I have been 
in public service 40 years and I am not some loon who is off trying to 
get a headline. I do not need it. Instead, I try to make headway.
   [[Page S1321]] And I know that taxes are unpopular. Because of 
pollster politics in this land, every politician is told, whether 
Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, that Americans are all 
against taxes. Uniquely and ironically, we are in such a position that 
the only way we can stop increasing daily interest taxes by $1 billion 
is to raise taxes.
 Now think about that statement. I said to stop increasing daily 
interest taxes of $1 billion. Or save a few Sundays, we pushing gross 
interest up to $339 billion. That interest cost to me is the worst tax 
of all, because it cannot be avoided. That is the first thing that 
comes off the top. So, we have spending on automatic pilot and tax 
increases on automatic pilot. That is why I say our country is in 
crisis.

  The truth of the matter is that we have not paid for the Congress in 
years. We have not paid for the FBI in years. We have not paid for the 
DEA in years. We have not paid for the Departments of Commerce, the 
Interior, Agriculture, and other Departments in years. Why? Because if 
we look to see domestic discretionary--not defense--domestic 
discretionary spending right this minute is $253 billion. Defense 
spending is $270 billion; international affairs is $21 billion for a 
grand total in discretionary spending of $544 billion.
  Get that figure in your mind and turn to the size of the deficit. The 
true deficit figure for 1995 is $283 billion and not the $176 billion 
that the press continues to report. They do not want to speak the truth 
in budgeting. I offered the amendment along with my late friend, 
Senator Heinz, to prevent us from using the Social Security trust fund 
to mask the size of the deficit. They do not adhere to it. OMB and CBO 
give two figures, one using the trust funds, one not using them.
  As an aside, I might mention that Social Security is paying its way. 
It is not in the red. In fact, by the end of the century we will owe 
Social Security $1 trillion. One trillion dollars we have borrowed. We 
are using these little IOU slips in the trust fund drawer to mask the 
true size of the deficit.
  Now we will jump back to the $253 billion we spend on domestic 
discretionary programs. The courts, the Congress, the President, the 
FBI, the judges--all of these Departments of Government add up to $253 
billion. Similarly, at the present time we have a deficit of $283 
billion. Thus, we could eliminate all of Government and we would still 
be facing a deficit.
  When we come around with the Contract with America and say we will 
balance the budget with spending cuts, eliminate the Government, so to 
speak, we will still have a deficit. This is the unpardonable crisis we 
have worked our way into. I have continued to search for ideas. I 
appeared with the best of experts, Mr. Charles Walker, former 
Undersecretary of the Treasury, Dr. Cnossen of the Netherlands, who 
helped write the Japanese value-added tax, the United Kingdom's value-
added tax.
  I have been to countries like Argentina that are operating on a 
balanced budget. I have been to Chile where they are operating on a 
balanced budget, and I am lecturing them? I am embarrassed. I have the 
biggest foreign debt. I have gross interest, the biggest domestic 
account that we can possibly think of, and we act like all we are here 
to do is make the headlines with contracts, identify with the family, 
identify with the middle class, identify with California on 
immigration, and get past, if you please, the election.
  I have tried to work on those entitlements. I wish Senators could 
have been at some of the meetings that I had with Claude Pepper. I 
learned that senior citizens were willing to sacrifice as long as 
everyone shared in shouldering the load. At a meeting with Claude and 
some senior citizens, I asked everyone to raise their hands if they 
were willing to just hold the line, freeze Social Security not cut it, 
but not get any increase so long as no one else got any increase. I 
would pick up half of Claude Pepper's audience. They would raise their 
hands and some would stand. After that, the distinguished Congressman 
from Florida and chairman of that particular committee quit inviting me 
to the meetings.
  I have stood the fire on COLA freezes. Someone on the other side 
might try and say, ``Oh, you did not vote that way in September 1985, 
when they wheeled in Pete Wilson for the Republican freeze of Social 
Security.'' That's true, I did not because it did not apply to every 
other particular program.
  In addition, I have tried to reduce other entitlements. Along with 
the Senator from Kansas, now majority leader, I attempted to reduce the 
waste and inefficiencies in the Food Stamp Program, but the promised 
savings never materialized. Instead, we saw more and more children 
qualify for the program. I can tell Members here and now what causes 
latchkey children. It is that the average family's income has steadily 
declined. So both parents have to get out and they both have to hustle. 
That is the case in my family and perhaps in your families and 
everybody's family. That is the fact of life.
  Some of them have to get out in order to support their children. The 
child is left at home.
  And there it is. If you think you are going to save on aid for 
dependent children, look at what the distinguished majority leader said 
in the morning paper that I read: Babies having babies we deplore, but 
we are not cutting the children off. I agree with him. It is a child 
problem, it is not a political problem with the next election to 
identify: ``I got hold of those riding around in Cadillacs and buying 
T-bone steaks with their food stamps''. I have heard that ad nauseam 
for years and have written a book on hunger. We will talk on that at 
length on a different occasion.
  My point in this whole particular amendment is that we are really in 
a crisis condition relative to spending on automatic pilot, and the 
need of the hour is not a delay for a constitutional amendment.
   The time for the discipline has passed, so to speak. What we need to 
do is do it. We all are like a bunch of players that have run up into 
the grandstand hollering, ``We want a touchdown; we want a touchdown; 
we want a touchdown.'' Darn it, get down on the field and score a 
touchdown. We are the players.
  I remember when Ronald Reagan came to town. He said he was going to 
balance the budget in 1 year. When he got here, after he had gotten 
elected on that pledge, he said, ``Oops, this thing is way worse. It's 
going to take me 2 years.''
  We went back, thinking he was serious, in the Budget Committee and 
said, ``All right, we'll make it 3 years so it will be realistic and we 
can get it done.''
  That was 1981, and by 1985, we had not done anything. In fact, we had 
this growth, growth, growth. We were supposed to grow out of our 
problems and give the people back their money so they can spend it 
better than Washington. We have been through that.
  But the fact of the matter is, by 1985 in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, we 
had to make a 5-year plan. Now they are jumping it to 7 years. If you 
agree to that, I can tell you the next Congress is going to come for 10 
years. Up, up, and away, just so long as you do not face the music.
  I am saying now is the hour to face that music. We cannot do all we 
want done. But we can make a good start of providing a Marshall plan to 
rebuild the economy of this land so that we can go back to providing 
jobs for Americans.
  The reality is that you cannot save enough on entitlements. What 
about defense? There are those who want to increase it inordinately. 
There are those who want to decrease it inordinately. I think the best 
judgment at this hour is to hold the line on defense and let the 
Defense Department really stabilize under the Bottom-Up Review.
  With respect to domestic discretionary spending reductions, they have 
to come from freezes and cuts. But once you go over the list, you find 
out that there are not enough savings to balance the budget.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this cover sheet, with the 
list of the cuts, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Non-Defense discretionary spending cuts           1996    1997 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space station...........................................   2.1     2.1  
Eliminate CDBG..........................................   2.0     2.0  
Eliminate low-income home energy assistance.............   1.4     1.5  
Eliminate arts funding..................................   1.0     1.0  
Eliminate funding for campus based aid..................   1.4     1.4  


                                                                        
[[Page S1322]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Non-Defense discretionary spending cuts           1996    1997 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate funding for impact aid........................   1.0     1.0  
Reduce law enforcement funding to control drugs.........   1.5     1.8  
Eliminate Federal wastewater grants.....................   0.8     1.6  
Eliminate SBA loans.....................................   0.21    0.282
Reduce Federal aid for mass transit.....................   0.5     1.0  
Eliminate EDA...........................................   0.02    0.1  
Reduce Federal rent subsidies...........................   0.1     0.2  
Reduce overhead for university research.................   0.2     0.3  
Repeal Davis-Bacon......................................   0.2     0.5  
Reduce State Department funding and end miscellaneous                   
 activities.............................................   0.1     0.2  
End Public Law 480 titles I and III sales...............   0.4     0.6  
Eliminate overseas broadcasting.........................   0.458   0.570
Eliminate the bureau of mines...........................   0.1     0.2  
Eliminate expansion of rural housing assistance.........   0.1     0.2  
Eliminate ATP...........................................   0.1     0.2  
Eliminate airport grant in aids.........................   0.3     1.0  
Eliminate Federal highway demonstration projects........   0.1     0.3  
Eliminate Amtrak subsidies..............................   0.4     0.4  
Eliminate RDA loan guarantees...........................   0.0     0.1  
Eliminate Appalachian Regional Commission...............   0.0     0.1  
Eliminate Untargeted funds for math and science.........   0.1     0.2  
Cut Federal salaries by 4 percent.......................   4.0     4.0  
Charge Federal employees commercial rates for parking...   0.1     0.1  
Reduce agricultural research extension activities.......   0.2     0.2  
Cancel advanced solid rocket motor......................   0.3     0.4  
Eliminate legal services................................   0.4     0.4  
Reduce Federal travel by 30 percent.....................   0.4     0.4  
Reduce energy funding for Energy Technology Development.   0.2     0.5  
Reduce Superfund cleanup costs..........................   0.2     0.4  
Reduce REA subsidies....................................   0.1     0.1  
Eliminate postal subsidies for non-profits..............   0.1     0.1  
Reduce NIH funding......................................   0.5     1.1  
Eliminate Federal Crop Insurance Program................   0.3     0.3  
Reduce Justice State-local assistance grants............   0.1     0.2  
Reduce export-import direct loans.......................   0.1     0.2  
Eliminate library programs..............................   0.1     0.1  
Modify Service Contract Act.............................   0.2     0.2  
Eliminate HUD special purpose grants....................   0.2     0.3  
Reduce housing programs.................................   0.4     1.0  
Eliminate Community Investment Program..................   0.1     0.4  
Reduce Strategic Petroleum Program......................   0.1     0.1  
Eliminate Senior Community Service Program..............   0.1     0.4  
Reduce USDA spending for export marketing...............   0.02    0.02 
Reduce maternal and child health grants.................   0.2     0.4  
Close Veterans hospitals................................   0.1     0.2  
Reduce number of political employees....................   0.1     0.1  
Reduce management costs for VA health care..............   0.2     0.4  
Reduce PMA subsidy......................................   0.0     1.2  
Reduce below cost timber sales..........................   0.0     0.1  
Reduce the legislative branch 15 percent................   0.3     0.3  
Eliminate small business development centers............   0.056   0.074
Eliminate minority assistance score, small business                     
 institute and other technical assistance programs,                     
 women's business assistance, international trade                       
 assistance, empowerment zones..........................   0.033   0.046
Eliminate new State Department construction projects....   0.010   0.023
Eliminate Int'l Boundaries and Water Commission.........   0.013   0.02 
Eliminate Asia Foundation...............................   0.013   0.015
Eliminate International Fisheries Commission............   0.015   0.015
Eliminate Arms Control Disarmament Agency...............   0.041   0.054
Eliminate NED...........................................   0.014   0.034
Eliminate Fulbright and other international exchanges...   0.119   0.207
Eliminate North-South center............................   0.002   0.004
Eliminate U.S. contribution to WHO, OAS, and other                      
 international organizations including the United                       
 Nations................................................   0.873   0.873
Eliminate participation in U.N, peacekeeping............   0.533   0.533
Eliminate Byrne Grant...................................   0.112   0.306
Eliminate Community Policing Program....................   0.286   0.780
Moratorium on new Federal prison construction...........   0.028   0.140
Reduce Coast Guard 10 percent...........................   0.208   0.260
Eliminate manufacturing extension program...............   0.03    0.06 
Eliminate Coastal zone management.......................   0.03    0.06 
Eliminate National Marine sanctuaries...................   0.007   0.012
Eliminate climate and global change research............   0.047   0.078
Eliminate national sea grant............................   0.032   0.054
Eliminate State weather modification grant..............   0.002   0.003
Cut weather service operations 10 percent...............   0.031   0.051
Eliminate regional climate centers......................   0.002   0.003
Eliminate minority business development agency..........   0.022   0.044
Eliminate public telecommunications facilities program                  
 grant..................................................   0.003   0.016
Eliminate children's educational television.............   0.0     0.002
Eliminate national information infrastructure grant.....   0.001   0.032
Cut Pell grants 20 percent..............................   0.250   1.24 
Eliminate education research............................   0.042   0.283
Cut Head Start 50 percent...............................   0.840   1.8  
Eliminate meals and services for the elderly............   0.335   0.473
Eliminate title II social service block grant...........   2.7     2.8  
Eliminate community services block grant................   0.317   0.470
Eliminate rehabilitation services.......................   1.85    2.30 
Eliminate vocational education..........................   0.176   1.2  
Reduce chapter 1 20 percent.............................   0.173   1.16 
Reduce special education 20 percent.....................   0.072   0.480
Eliminate bilingual education...........................   0.029   0.196
Eliminate JTPA..........................................   0.250   4.5  
Eliminate child welfare services........................   0.240   0.289
Eliminate CDC Breast Cancer Program.....................   0.048   0.089
Eliminate CDC AIDS Control Program......................   0.283   0.525
Eliminate Ryan White AIDS Program.......................   0.228   0.468
Eliminate maternal and child health.....................   0.246   0.506
Eliminate Family Planning Program.......................   0.069   0.143
Eliminate CDC Immunization Program......................   0.168   0.345
Eliminate Tuberculosis Program..........................   0.042   0.087
Eliminate Agricultural Research Service.................   0.546   0.656
Reduce Agricultural Research Service....................   1.579   1.735
Reduce WIC 50 percent...................................   1.579   1.735
Eliminate TEFAP:                                                        
    Administrative......................................   0.024   0.040
    Commodities.........................................   0.025   0.025
Reduce cooperative State research service 20 percent....   0.044   0.070
Reduce animal plant health inspection service 10 percent   0.036   0.044
Reduce food safety inspection service 10 percent........   0.047   0.052
                                                         ---------------
    Total:..............................................  36.942  58.407
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  I been trying to put us on a reasonable path to get our deficit down 
to zero. But to do that through spending reductions alone requires $1.2 
billion in cuts over 7 years and $37 billion in the first year.
  Thirty-seven billion dollars in domestic discretionary looks 
attainable until you try it on. That is why I have listed them, doing 
my dead-level best to get up to the $37 billion. I have listed the 
space station, eliminate it; the community development block grants; 
the lower-income home energy assistance; the arts funding, the funding 
for campus-based aid; the funding for impact aid; the funding to 
control drugs; SBA loans should be eliminated; the Federal aid to mass 
transit; eliminate the Economic Development Administration; reduce the 
Federal rent subsidies; reduce overhead for university research; repeal 
Davis-Bacon--I am going down a list of all these things they have been 
thinking about.
  I am going down a list of all these things they have been speaking 
about.
  Reduce the State Department funding and end miscellaneous activities, 
end P.L. 480 title I and title III sales, eliminate the overseas 
broadcasting, the Bureau of Mines, eliminate expansion of the rural 
housing assistance, eliminate U.S. Trade and Tourism and Travel 
Administration, the advanced technology program, the airport grants in 
aid, the Federal highway demonstration programs, eliminate Amtrak 
subsidies, eliminate the RDA loan guarantees, the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, the untargeted funds for math and science, cut Federal 
salaries by 4 percent, charge Federal employees commercial rates for 
parking, reduce agriculture research extension activities, cancel the 
advanced solid rocket motor, eliminate Legal Services Corporation, 
reduce the Federal travel by 30 percent, reduce the energy funding for 
energy technology development, reduce the Superfund cleanup costs, 
reduce the REA subsidies, eliminate the postal subsidies for 
nonprofits, reduce the NIH funding, eliminate the Federal Crop 
Insurance Program, reduce the Justice-State local assistance grants, 
reduce the export-import direct loans, eliminate library programs, 
modify the service contract, eliminate the HUD special purpose grants, 
reduce housing programs, eliminate community investment programs, 
reduce strategic petroleum program, eliminate the senior community 
service program, reduce the U.S. Department of Agriculture spending for 
export marketing, reduce maternal and child health grants, close the 
veterans hospitals, reduce the number of political employees, reduce 
the management costs for the VA health care, reduce the PMA subsidy, 
reduce below-cost timber sales, reduce the legislative branch 15 
percent, eliminate the small business development centers, eliminate 
the minority assistance on SCORE, technical assistance programs for 
women's business assistance, international trade assistance and import 
zones--all that is minority assistance gone, just like they did the 
caucus over across the hall there--eliminate new State Department 
construction projects, eliminate the International Boundaries and Water 
Commission, eliminate the Asia Foundation, eliminate the International 
Fisheries Commission, eliminate the Arms Control Disarmament Agency, 
eliminate the National Endowment for Democracy, eliminate Fulbright and 
other international exchanges, eliminate the North-South Center, 
eliminate the United States contribution to the World Health 
Organization, Organization of American States, and the other 
international organizations, including the United Nations, eliminate 
participation in U.N. peacekeeping, eliminate the Byrne grants, 
eliminate community policing programs, a moratorium on new Federal 
prison construction, reduce the Coast Guard 10 percent, eliminate 
manufacturing extension program, eliminate coastal zone management, the 
national marine sanctuaries, the climate and global change research, 
the national sea grant program, eliminate the State well and 
modification program, cut the Weather Service operations 10 percent, 
eliminate the regional climate centers, eliminate the Minority Business 
Development Agency, eliminate the public telecommunications facilities 
program grant, eliminate children's educational television, eliminate 
the national information infrastructure grant, cut Pell grants 20 
percent, eliminate education research, cut Head Start 50 percent, 
eliminate the meals and services for the elderly, eliminate title II 
social service block grant, eliminate community services block grant, 
eliminate rehabilitation services, eliminate vocational education, 
reduce chapter 1 20 percent, reduce special education 20 percent, 
eliminate bilingual education, eliminate JTPA, eliminate child welfare 
services, eliminate CDC breast cancer program, eliminate the CDC AIDS 
control program, eliminate the Ryan White AIDS program, eliminate 
maternal and child health, eliminate family planning program, eliminate 
the CDC immunization program, eliminate the tuberculosis program, 
eliminate Agriculture Research Service, reduce WIC 50 percent, 
eliminate TEFP administrative commodities, reduce cooperative State 
research 20 percent, eliminate animal/plant health inspection services 
10 percent, reduce food safety inspection service 10 percent, and you 
have in outlays for the year 1996, $36.942 billion.
  Incidentally, Mr. President, it would be good at this time to include 
in the Record a letter the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire 
dated January 11, 1995, to his colleagues saying, ``As part of this 
process * * * to head up an effort to find dramatic spending reductions 
in entitlements,'' and list of 
[[Page S1323]] reductions in entitlements be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 1995.
       Dear Colleague: As you know, we are aggressively proceeding 
     to address the development of next year's budget under the 
     leadership of Senator Dole and Senator Domenici. As part of 
     this process, I have been asked to head up an effort to find 
     dramatic spending reductions in entitlements. I would 
     appreciate your help in this effort.
       We are going to attempt to identify entitlement savings in 
     the range of hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 
     five years. To accomplish this, we are using the following 
     documents:
       (1) Last year's Republican budget which entailed nearly 
     $215 billion in entitlement savings (Appendix A);
       (2) An allocation formula of additional savings based on 
     the approximate percent that various spending categories 
     represent of total entitlement spending (Appendix B) and;
       (3) A working draft of potential areas for savings 
     (Appendix C).
       Social Security is not to be included in any of this 
     activity.
       Using the enclosed documents and any other materials or 
     ideas that you may have, I would appreciate it if you or your 
     staff would get back to us no later than January 17th as to 
     any specific suggestions or proposals that you would like to 
     make.
       Thank you for your attention to this issue.
           Sincerely,
     Judd Gregg.
                                                                    ____


   Chapter 1: Proposals To Reform the Civil Service Retirement System


i. options to reduce replacement rates from the start of retirement for 
                             CSRS and FERS

       A. Modify the salary used to set pensions:
       Cost Savings: $510 million over 5 years. (CBO projections 
     from 1995-1999).


  II. options to retain initial replacement rates but reduce benefits 
     during retirement through cola restrictions for csrs and fers

       A. Limit COLAS to one-half percentage point below inflation 
     for CSRS:
       Cost savings: $2.45 billion over 5 years. (CBO projections 
     from 1995-1999).
       B. Defer COLAS until age 62 for all non-disabled employees 
     who retire before that age for those under CSRS:
       Cost savings: $1.210 billion over five years. (CBO 
     projections from 1995-1999: No savings in 1995).


       III. OPTIONS TO INCREASE THE CSRS AND FERS RETIREMENT AGE

       A. Raise the retirement age from 55 to 65 prospectively for 
     all new hires after 1993:
       Cost savings: Because of the prospective implementation, 
     there would be no immediate savings.
       B. Raise the age of civilian retirement to 62:
       Cost savings: $14 billion over 5 years (1994-1998).
  iv. options to raise defined benefit contributions in csrs and fers

       A. Increase employee contributions to Retirement Fund in 
     CSRS from 7 percent to 9 percent over two years:
       Cost Savings: $4.180 billion over 5 years. (CBO Projection 
     from 1995-1999).


          v. options regarding csrs and fers survivor benefits

       A. Conform the maximum entitlement age for CSRS/FERS child-
     survivor benefits to that of Social Security:
       Cost savings: $50 million over 4 years. (1994-1997).
       B. Base survivor annuity on the retiree's reduced annuity:
       Cost savings: $350 million over 4 years. (1994-1997).


vi. options to decrease the employer matching rate for voluntary thrift 
                    savings plan (tsp) contributions

       Option 1: Eliminate the 50-cents-per-dollar match for the 
     fifth percent of salary available under the current thrift 
     savings plan for all new hires:
       Cost savings: $144 million over 5 years.
       Option 2: Eliminate the 50-cents-per-dollar match for new 
     employees:
       Cost savings: No saving over 5 years.
       Option 3: Limit the Federal match to a federal matching 
     rate of 50 percent against the first five percent of pay:
       Cost savings: $2.34 billion over 5 years. (CBO projections 
     from 1995-1999).
       Option 4: Reduce the Federal matching contributions from 
     one dollar to 50 cents for contributions above the first one-
     percent of pay contributed by employees:
       Cost savings: Does not indicate separate cost savings.

     Chapter 2: Proposals To Reform the Military Retirement System


  i. options to reduce replacement rates from the start of retirement

       A. Modify the salary used to set pensions:
       Cost savings: $110 million over 5 years. (CBO Projections 
     from 1995-1999).


  ii. options to retain initial replacement rates but reduce benefits 
              during retirement through cola restrictions

       B. Defer COLAs:
       Option 1: For those who enlist after 1993, defer the COLA 
     on their retirement benefits until age 62:
       Cost savings: None over 5 years. (1994-1999).
       Option 2: Defer COLAs for all future military retirees 
     until age 62:
       Cost savings: $4.45 billion over 5 years. (CBO projections 
     from 1995-1999: No savings in 1995).
       B. Limit COLAs:
       1. Limit COLAs to one percentage point below inflation for 
     all the future military retirees.
       Cost savings: $2.77 billion over 5 years. (CBO projections 
     from 1995-1999).
                Chapter 3: Proposals To Reform Medicare

  Part 1: Proposals To Reform Medicare Part A, Hospital Insurance (HI)


                  i. prospective payment system (pps)

       A. Eliminate Medicare payments to hospitals for enrollees' 
     bad debts:
       Cost savings: $1.75 billion over 5 years. (CBO Projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       B. Eliminate Medicare's additional payments to sole 
     community hospitals (SCHs).
       Cost savings: $1.33 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).


                    ii. pps--update factor proposals

       Cost savings: $17.76 billion over four years. (HHS 
     projection for 1997-2000).
       A. Update Medicare payments to hospitals for inpatient care 
     on a calendar-year basis:
       Cost savings: $4.6 billion over 4 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1994-1997).
       B. Freeze Medicare's part A payment rates and limits for 1 
     year:
       Cost savings: $8.45 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       C. Extend OBRA-93 skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) 
     savings:
       Cost savings: $920 million over 5 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1996-2000).


                         iii. capital payments

       A. Mandated reduction in capital reimbursement payments to 
     hospitals:
       Cost savings: $4 billion over 5 years. (HHS projection 
     based on $800 million savings annually).
       B. Reduce capital payments by the following three changes:
       Cost savings: $6.2 billion over 5 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1996-2000).


                     iv. indirect medical education

       A. Reduce Medicare's payments for the indirect costs of 
     patient care that are related to hospitals' teaching 
     programs:
       Option 1: Lower teaching adjustments to 6 percent:
       Cost savings: $4.79 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       Option 2: Lower teaching adjustments to 3 percent:
       Cost savings: $13.55 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       Option 3: Lower teaching adjustments to level supported by 
     HCFA's empirical data, or 5.65 percent:
       Cost savings: $5.225 billion over 5 years. (HHS projection 
     based on annual savings of $1.045 billion).
       Option 4: Lower teaching adjustments to 3.2 percent:
       Cost savings: $8.71 billion over 5 years. (GAO projection 
     1992-1996).
       B. Replace indirect medical education adjustments with a 
     transfer support system:
       Cost savings: $18.45 billion over 5 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1996-2000).
   Part 2: Proposals to Reform Medicare Part B, Supplemental Medical 
                               Insurance


                 i. fee schedules--physicians services

       A. Relative value units:
       1. Payments to medical staffs would be limited.
       Cost savings: $2.45 billion over 3 years (HHS projection 
     for 1998-2000; no savings in 1995-97).
       B. Geographic adjustment:
       There are no current options that affect the geographic 
     adjustment.
       C. Conversion factor:
       1. Reduction in conversion factor for 1994.
       Cost savings: $2.85 billion over 6 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1995-2000).
       D. Update factor:
       1. Beginning in fiscal year 1996, use the change in real 
     gross domestic product (GDP) to adjust the volume and 
     intensity factors of the MVPS calculation.
       Cost savings: $5.775 billion over 4 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1997-2000).
       2. Set cumulative growth targets for MVPS.
       Cost savings: $5.475 billion over 4 years (HHS projection 
     from 1997-2000) Note: includes $75 million cost in 1997.


                            v. means-testing

       A. Phase in an increase of the deductible from $696 to 
     $2000 for hospital stays under Medicare Part A for 
     individuals with AGIs above $70,000 (couples above $90,000):
       Cost savings: $1.6 billion over 5 years. (1995-1999).


            vi. disproportionate share hospital adjustments

       A. Eliminate the disproportionate share adjustment for 
     hospitals in Medicare's prospective payment system:
       Option 1: Eliminate the DSH payment immediately.
       Cost savings: $20.3 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       Option 1: Phase out the DSH payments over 5 years.
       Cost savings: $12.55 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
     [[Page S1324]] 
       B. Reduce DSH payments:
       Cost savings: $17.25 billion over 5 years. (HHS projects an 
     additional 1.5 percentage points would be added for primary 
     care services. Projection for 1996-2000).


                  vii. administrative savings options

       A. Do not reimburse Medicare providers for substandard 
     medical care:
       Cost savings: $550 million over 5 years. (HHS projection 
     based on annual estimated savings of $110 million).
                ii. clinical lab services-fee schedules

       A. Include laboratory services in outpatient or office 
     visits in the charges:
       Cost savings: $6 billion over 5 years. (HHS projection).
       B. Change the way Medicare pays for clinical laboratory 
     test:
       Cost savings: $2.13 billion over 5 years. (HHS projection).
       C. Permanently extend the 2 percent annual update of 
     Medicare reimbursement rates for clinical lab services:
       Cost savings: $740 million over 4 years. (OMB projection 
     for 1994-1997).


                   iii. outpatient treatment/services

       A. Treat hospital admissions as outpatient services when 
     there is no overnight stay:
       Cost savings: $1.05 billion over 5 years. (HHS projection 
     based on annual savings $210 million).
       B. Bring outpatient-services payments in line with 
     ambulatory service center (ASC) approved insurance:
       Cost savings: $645 million over 5 years. (HHS projection).
       C. Continue Medicare's transition to prospective rates for 
     facility costs in hospital outpatient departments:
       Cost savings: $340 million over 5 years.
       D. Require Medicare payments to equal the blended amount 
     less any amount the hospital may charge as coinsurance:
       Cost savings: $9.75 billion over 7 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1994-2000).
       E. Reasonable cost reimbursements:
       1. Increase the 5.8 percent reduction of payments for 
     hospital outpatient services to 10 percent reduction.
       Cost savings: $2.6 billion over 4 years from 1993 estimate. 
     (OMB estimate as reported in Medicare: FY94 Budget (Updated 
     December 13, 1993)).


                      iv. co-insurance for part b

       A. Increase the part B coinsurance rate to 25 percent on 
     all services that are currently subject to a coinsurance rate 
     of 20 percent:
       Cost savings: $16.25 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       B. Clinical lab services:
       1. Collect 20 percent coinsurance on clinical lab services 
     under Medicare.
       Cost savings: $6.18 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).


                             v. deductible

       A. Increase Medicare's deductible from $100 to $150 and 
     index for inflation:
       Cost savings: $9.29 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     over 1995-1999).


                              vi. premiums

       A. Increase the part B premium to 30 percent of program 
     costs:
       Cost savings: $17.37 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999). (Note: Savings is actually over 4 years 
     because no change in 1995).
                           vii. means-testing

       A. Phase out the premium subsidy for higher income 
     beneficiaries:
       Option 1: Gradually reduce the Medicare part B premium 
     subsidy for high-income enrollees with AGIs beginning at 
     $70,000 for individuals ($90,000 for couples). The subsidy 
     would be phased out completely at AGI of $95,000 for 
     individuals ($115,000 for couples).
       Cost savings: $7.34 billion over 5 years.
       Option 2: Phase out part B subsidy through gradual 
     reduction in subsidy for enrollees earning more than $50,000 
     ($65,000 for couples):
       Cost savings: $16.3 billion over 5 years.
       Option 3: Raise the part B premium to cover 75 percent of 
     costs for individuals with incomes exceeding $90,000 
     ($115,000 for couples):
       Cost savings: Not Available.
       Option 4: Raise the premium for physicians' services under 
     Medicare to cover 75 percent of costs for individuals with 
     incomes exceeding $75,000 ($100,000 for couples):
       Cost savings: $8 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection for 
     1996-2000).
       Option 5: Raise the part B premium to cover 50 percent of 
     costs for individuals with incomes exceeding $60,000 and for 
     couples with incomes exceeding $80,000:
       Cost savings: $6.02 billion over 5 years.
       Option 6: Income-related premiums would cover 100 percent 
     of costs for individuals with incomes exceeding $125,000 and 
     for couples with incomes over $150,000:
       Cost savings: $5.375 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       Option 7: Raise the premium for physicians' services under 
     Medicare to cover an additional one-third of program costs 
     for individuals with incomes exceeding $100,000 ($125,000 for 
     couples):
       Cost savings: Not Available.


                          viii. miscellaneous

       A. Charge a fee for supplementary medical insurance (part 
     B) claims that are not billed electronically:
       Cost savings: $550 million over 4 years. (CBO projection 
     1994-1998).
       B. Competitive bids:
       1. Require the Secretary of HHS to establish competitive 
     acquisition areas for the awarding of contracts to furnish 
     selected items or services, effective January 1, 1995.
       Cost savings: $980 million over 6 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1995-2000).
       2. Require the Secretary to reduce lab fee schedule payment 
     amounts if competitive acquisition did not result in a 10 
     percent reduction in payments that would otherwise have been 
     made.
       Cost savings: $1.55 billion over 6 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1995-2000).


                         ix. extend current law

       A. Permanently extend OBRA-90 5.8 percent reduction of 
     Medicare reimbursement for hospital outpatient department 
     (OPD) reasonable costs beyond 1995:
       Cost savings: $950 million over 4 years. (OMB projection 
     for 1994-1997).
             Part 3: Proposals Affecting Part A and Part B


                  i. medicare secondary payment (msp)

       A. Extend MSP provisions for beneficiaries whose Medicare 
     eligibility is based on end stage renal disease (ESRD) from 
     the current law limit of 18 months to the duration of 
     treatment of the disease:
       Cost savings: $3.018 billion over 5 years.


                        ii. home health services

       A. Home health co insurance:
       Option 1: Establish 20 percent coinsurance for home health 
     services under Medicare from beneficiaries with Adjusted 
     Gross Income (AGI) above 150 percent of the Federal poverty 
     level. (The 150 percent poverty level in 1992 was $10,094 for 
     individuals age 65 or over and $12,730 for two-person 
     families with a head age 65 or older):
       Cost savings: $13.675 billion over 5 years.
       Option 2: Establish 10 percent coinsurance on home health 
     services under Medicare from beneficiaries with AGI above 150 
     percent of the Federal poverty level. (The 150 percent 
     poverty level in 1992 was $10.094 for individuals age 65 or 
     over and $12,730 for two-person families with a head age 65 
     or older):
       Cost savings: $7 billion over 5 years. (1994-1998).
       Option 3: Establish a 10 percent copayment from those 
     receiving home health services:
       Cost savings: $11 billion over 5 years.
       Option 4: Establish a 10 percent copayment for all home 
     health services, except for those received within 30 days of 
     discharge from a hospital for inpatient care:
       Cost savings: $8.02 billion over 6 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1995-2000).
       Option 5: Collect 20 percent coinsurance on all home health 
     and skilled nursing facility (SNF) services under Medicare:
       Cost savings: $20.45 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       B. Other home health proposals:
       1. Extend OBRA-93 home health saving.
       Cost savings: $2.1 billion over 4 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1997-2000).
       2. Establish home health median limit.
       Cost savings: $600 million over 4 years. (HHS projection 
     for 1997-2000).


                    iii. graduate medical education

       A. Reduce Medicare's direct payments for Medical education:
       Option 1: Base Medicare direct medical education payments 
     on a national per resident amount derived from the national 
     average of salaries paid to residents in 1987, updated 
     annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban areas:
       Cost savings: $1.07 billion over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       Option 2: Base Medicare direct medical education payments 
     on a national per resident amount derived solely from the 
     average of salaries paid to residents:
       Cost savings: $1.4 billion over 4 years. (OMB projection 
     for 1994-1997).
       Option 3: Reduce teaching and overhead payments for non-
     rural, non-primary care residents in their initial residency 
     period
      and eliminate these payments beyond the initial residency, 
     but continue to pay salaries and fringe benefits:
       Cost savings: $1.225 billion over 5 years. (1994-1995).


                          iv. eligibility age

       A. Raise the Medicare entitlement age to 67:
       Cost savings: Savings would begin in the year 2000 and 
     build as the increase is phased in over 26 years. The 
     potential savings would be approx. $60 billion per year 
     immediately after the entitlement age reaches 67 in 2027. 
     This amount is between $4.7 and $14.6 billion per year, 
     depending on the measure used.


                            v. means testing

       A. Establish an income-tested deductible for the sum of 
     payments under part A and part B of Medicare:
       Cost savings: $55 billion annual savings. The authority of 
     this option (CATO) estimate that it would reduce the growth 
     of outlays from medical care by at least one percentage 
     point.


              vi. health maintenance organizations (HMOs)

       A. Standardize payments to HMOs:
       Cost savings: $1.285 billion over 6 years. (OMB projection 
     for 1995-2000).


                 vii. extend provisions of current law

       A. Medicare secondary payment (MSP):
       Cost savings: $2.680 billion over 2 years (HHS projection 
     for 1999-2000; no savings in 1995-1998 because the current 
     system covers up to 1998).
       B. Permanently extend the data program to identify Medicare 
     secondary payment (MSP):
       [[Page S1325]] Cost savings: $465 million over 2 years. 
     (HHS projection; no savings before 1999 because current 
     system is in effect through 1998).


                  viii. administrative savings options

       A. MSP Overpayments:
       Cost savings: Savings from this proposal depend on 
     administrative action, including the allocation of sufficient 
     discretionary funding to the HCFA to collect the estimated 
     overpayments. While the maximum savings would be $961.6 
     million in the first year, it is unlikely that all of this 
     sum would be collectable.
       B. Increase Medicare oversight funding for the contractors 
     that do claims processing:
       Cost savings (savings in mandatory spending, but costs in 
     discretionary spending):
       Heritage Foundations--$5.4 billion over 5 years.
       GAO--stated that CBO does not make estimates of this type 
     of savings but does not disagree with GAO.
                Chapter 4: Proposals To Reform Medicaid

       1. Institutionalized care.
       A. Nursing facility care (NFC):
       1. Mandate state regulation of growth in the number of 
     nursing home beds.
       Cost savings: $625 million over 5 years. (CBO projection 
     for 1995-1999).
       B. Institutions for the mentally retarded:
       1. Reduce to legally authorized levels of Medicaid payments 
     to institutions for the mentally retarded.
       Cost savings: $3.415 billion over 5 years. (HHS projection 
     based on annual savings of $683 million).


                             miscellaneous

       A. Managed care:
       1. Require states to phases in managed care programs for 
     Medicaid patients.
       Cost savings: $10 billion over 5 years. (1995-1999).
       B. Merge Women Infants and Children (WIC) with Medicaid:
       Cost savings: $4.4 billion over 4 years. (1992-1996).
       C. Impose higher premiums on Medicaid recipients with 
     incomes over 100 percent of poverty:
       Cost savings: $600 million over 4 years. (1992-1996).
       D. Eliminate Medicaid transition benefits for AFDC 
     recipients:
       Cost savings: $750 million over 4 years (1992-1996).
       E. Eliminate Federal matching in the Medicaid Program for 
     the State Medicare buy-in:
       Cost savings: $3.6 billion over 6 years. (1992-1996).

      Chapter 5: Proposals To Reform Federal Health Care Programs


                  i. federal employees health benefits

       A. End the pay-as-you-go policy for Federal employees 
     health benefits program and prefund Federal retirees' health 
     insurance (pay-as-you-earn policy):
       Cost savings: $11.6 billion over 5 years. Estimates of 
     savings could vary greatly, depending on CBO's estimate of 
     the timing of a Postal rate increase to finance this 
     proposal. The recorded deficit would not change by adopting 
     this proposal because the increased agency payments would 
     simply represent transactions between accounts within the 
     budget. But the option's coverage of government enterprises, 
     primarily the Postal Service, would reduce the Federal budget 
     deficit in the near term. The option would increase agencies' 
     current costs, but the agencies could offset these increases 
     by absorbing the costs through program reductions, or by 
     increasing the postage and utility rates and thus decrease 
     the budget deficit. Almost all of the savings would come from 
     the Postal Service because it is highly labor intensive. Rate 
     increases could not be effective before late 1996 or early 
     1997.


                      ii. health care block grants

       A. Reduce funding by 50 percent for the maternal child 
     health (MCH) block grant and the preventive health services 
     block grant:
       Cost savings: $1.7 billion over 5 years. (1992-1996).
          Chapter 9: Proposals To Reform Means-tested Programs

     Part 1: Proposals To Reform Supplemental Security Income (SSI)


                         i. programmatic reform

       A. Reduce the $20 exclusion from income in SSI:
       Cost savings: $1 billion over 5 years.
       B. Replace cash benefits with medical vouchers for SSI 
     benefits to disabled children:
       Cost savings: Not Available.
       C. Review status of SSI child disability recipients upon 
     eighteenth birthday:
       Cost savings: Not Available.


       ii. administrative proposals that require no change in law

       A. Overpayments and debts:
       1. Report the admission of SSI recipients to nursing homes 
     in a timely fashion in order to stop overpayment of benefits.
       Cost savings: $110 million over 5 years.
       2. Use income tax offsets to recover SSI overpayments.
       Cost savings: $82.5 million over 5 years.
       3. Improve recovery SSI overpayments by offsetting 
     reductions in Social Security payments.
       Cost savings through legislation: $120 million over 5 
     years.
       Cost savings without legislation: $46.5 million over 5 
     years.

                  Part 2: Proposals To Reform Welfare


                         i. non-citizens/aliens

       A. Restrict eligibility for recipients of welfare 
     assistance:
       Option 1: Rescind the PRUCOL standard for AFDC, SSI, and 
     nonemergency Medicaid and replace with a uniform standard for 
     programs with a restricted list of eligible recipients.
       Cost savings: Not Available.
       Option 2: Deny all aliens, except refugees and elderly 
     permanent residents, from eligibility for 61 programs, not 
     including emergency Medicaid:
       Cost savings: Not Available.
       Option 3: Deny all aliens, with limited exception, from 
     eligibility for 58 programs, not including emergency 
     Medicaid:
       Cost savings: Not Available.


                       ii. families and children

       A. Cap the AFDC-emergency program:
       Cost savings: $1.6 billion over 5 years.
       B. Reduce benefits to AFDC families who also receive public 
     housing benefits:
       Cost savings: $3 billion over 5 years.
       C. Eliminate the $50 child support payment to AFDC 
     families:
       Cost savings: $630 million over 5 years.
       D. Decrease Head Start funding by 50 percent:
       Cost savings: Not Available.
       E. Limit Federal participation in States' costs for 
     administering the Foster Care Program:
       Option 1: This option would limit annual increases in 
     payments to each state for administrative costs to 10 percent 
     a year:
       Cost savings: $150 million over five years (CBO Cost 
     projections).
       Option 2: This option would limit annual increases in 
     payments to each state in the four following ways:
       Cost savings: $1.793 billion over 5 years.
       F. Require States to develop criteria and implement 
     procedures for assuring that foster care agencies refer 
     appropriate cases to State child support agencies:
       Cost savings: $55 million over 5 years.

Part 3: Proposals To Reform the Food Stamp and Child Nutrition Programs


                      i. administrative proposals

       A. Merge AFDC, food stamps, public housing assistance, the 
     earned income tax credit (EITC), and other welfare programs 
     into a cash assistance program requiring recipients without 
     children to work for assistance:
       Cost savings: $10 billion over 5 years.


            ii. changes in federal reimbursement procedures

       A. Change Federal administrative-cost reimbursements in 
     welfare programs:
       1. Reduce the reimbursement rate for administrative costs 
     in AFDC, Medicaid, and Food Stamps to 45 percent.
       Cost savings: $5.7 billion over 5 years.
       2. Consolidate the administrative costs of AFDC, Medicaid, 
     and Food Stamps into a single system, requiring states to pay 
     at least half of all administrative costs and placing a cap 
     on total reimbursable expenditures.
       Cost savings: $6.3 billion over 5 years.
       3. Require states to reimburse the Federal government for 
     all food stamps overpayment errors caused by state 
     administrators.
       Cost savings: $5.6 billion over 5 years.
       4. Deny Federal matching of administrative costs for 
     expenses related to states appealing quality control 
     sanctions in the Food Stamp, AFDC, and Medicaid programs.
       Cost savings: Not Available.
                        III. PROGRAMMATIC REFORM

       A. Eliminate food stamps, public housing, and other welfare 
     benefits for all able-bodied adults:
       Cost savings: $6 billion over 5 years.
       B. Require all employable food stamp recipients to engage 
     in workfare or job search:
       Cost savings: $600 million over 5 years.
       C. Food Stamp Benefits:
       1. Eliminate small food stamp benefits.
       Cost savings: $300 million over 5 years.
       2. Limit child nutrition program subsidies.
       Option 1: Increase targeting of school lunch and child and 
     adult care food program on low-income persons by eliminating 
     subsidies for children from families with relatively high 
     incomes:
       Cost savings: $3.07 million over 5 years.
       Option 2: Restrict child nutrition and school lunch 
     subsidies to families below 185 percent of the poverty 
     threshold:
       Cost savings: $5.7 billion over 5 years.
       Option 3: End all child nutrition program subsidies for 
     children with family income above poverty:
       Cost savings: $1 billion over 5 years.
       D. Count certain non-cash benefits in determining housing 
     and food stamp assistance:
       Cost savings: $6.15 billion over 5 years.

   Part 4: Proposals To Reform the Unemployment Compensation Program


                   I. Unemployment Compensation (UC)

       A. Deny UC benefits to military personnel who leave 
     voluntarily:
       Cost savings: $1.4 billion savings over 5 years (1994-
     1998).
       B. End unemployment compensation benefits for individuals 
     with taxable income execeeding $120,000 a year:
       Cost savings: $361 million over 5 years (1994-1998).
       C. Substantially reduce unemployment benefits by delaying 
     benefits for 1 month and reducing the benefit by 5 percent 
     per week for 20 weeks:
       Cost savings: $5.0 billion savings over 5 years (1994-
     1998).
       [[Page S1326]] D. Require a two-week waiting period before 
     unemployment compensation benefits begin:
       Cost savings: $4.6 billion savings over 5 years (1993-
     1997).


                    II. Trade Adjustment Assistance

       A. Eliminate trade adjustment assistance, including 
     training and cash benefits:
       Cost savings: $990 million over 5 years (1995-1999).
       B. Eliminate trade adjustment assistance cash benefits:
       Cost savings: $660 million over 5 years (1995-1999).
       C. Congressional proposals:
       1. Reemployment Act of 1994.
       Cost savings: Not available.
       2. Job Training Consolidation Act of 1994 (Sen. Kassebaum).
       Cost savings: Not available.


              iii. privatization of unemployment benefits

       Cost savings: Not available.

             Part 5: Proposals to Reform Veterans' Programs


                      i. General benefit payments

       A. Eliminate subsidy for administrative costs of life 
     insurance programs:
       Cost savings: $113 million over 4 years.
       B. Restore GI Bill Education Program funding ratio to 9:1:
       Cost savings: $339 million over 4 years.


                             ii. facilities

       A. Close or convert inefficient or underused VA facilities:
       Cost savings: $1.2 billion over 5 years.


                            iii. health care

       A. Adopt a prospective payment system for veterans health 
     care (Similar to the Medicare system):
       Cost savings: $2.25 billion over 5 years.


                        iv. disability payments

       A. End VA disability compensation for non-service-related 
     injuries and illnesses:
       Cost savings: $950 million over 5 years.
       B. Eliminate disability payments to veterans with diseases 
     presumed not to be related to military service:
       Cost savings: $616 million over five years.
     Chapter 10: Proposals To Reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
                              Corporation


  i. eliminate the variable rate premium cap by 1997 and raising the 
variable rate premium from $9 to $18 for * * *

                           *   *   *   *   *


       3. Extend authority to recover costs from health insurers 
     of veterans for non-service-related conditions.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       C. Restrict eligibility for disability compensation 
     benefits:
       Option 1: End payments to veterans with low-rated 
     disabilities.
       Cost savings: $3.25 billion over 5 years.
       Option 2: Phase-out payments to veterans with non-service 
     related or low-rated disabilities.
       Cost savings: $2.6 billion in 2000.


                                v. loans

       A. Loan fees:
       1. Raise the loan fee for housing loans guaranteed by the 
     VA.
       Cost savings: $1.4 billion over five years.
       B. Require down payment and fee for multiple use of loan 
     guaranty:
       Cost savings: $68 million over four years.
       C. Permanently extend resale loss provision:
       Cost savings: $80 million over four years.


                  vi. extend provisions of current law

       A. Eliminate all ``sunset'' dates on certain provisions for 
     veterans:
       1. Permanently extend income verification through IRS.
       Cost savings: $25 million in 1999.
       2. Permanently extend pension limit to veterans receiving 
     Medicaid care.
       Cost savings: $190 million in 1999.

             Chapter 11: Proposals to Reform Farm Programs


                            i. conservation

       A. End the Conservation Reserve Program:
       Cost savings: $9.3 billion over 5 years.
       (While the program costs about $1.8 billion per year it is 
     estimated that the program saves about $1 billion in Federal 
     expenditures in other farm programs. The $9.3 billion 
     estimate probably does not account for this. Thus, the actual 
     savings could be only $800 million per year, or $4 billion 
     over 5 years.)


                           ii. farm subsidies

       A. Crop subsidies
       1. Phase out agricultural crop subsidies over 5 years at a 
     rate of 20 percent each year.
       Cost savings: $6.5 billion over 4 years.
       2. Lower target prices subsidized crops.
       Option 1: Reduce prices by 3 percent annually starting in 
     1995.
       Cost savings: $11.2 billion over 5 years.
       Option 2: Reduce prices by 1.5 percent in 1995 and 1996, 
     and 3 percent for 4 years thereafter.
       Cost savings: $4.5 billion over 5 years.
       3. End Federal subsidies for rice and cotton.
       Cost savings: $6.8 billion over 5 years.
       4. Eliminate the 0/85 (formerly 0/92) and 50/85 (formerly 
     50/92) programs for participants in USDA commodity programs, 
     which pay farmers to leave land idle.
       Cost savings: $1.34 billion over 5 years.
       5. Reduce the CCC outlays by lowering the number of acres 
     eligible for deficiency payments from 85 percent to 75 
     percent of base acreage.
       Cost savings: $3.94 billion over 5 years.
       6. Increase assessments on ``non-program'' federally-
     subsidized crops starting in 1996.
       Cost savings: $900 million over 4 years.
       7. Require specific ``Endings-Stock-To-Use'' ratios for 
     setting acreage reduction programs for feed grains.
       Cost savings: $600 million over 5 years.
       B. Livestock subsidies:
       1. Dairy subsidies and supports.
       a. End all Federal dairy subsidies.
       Cost savings: $1 billion over 4 years.
       b. Reduce costs for the dairy price support program by 
     increasing the assessment on producers.
       Cost savings: $1.2 billion over 5 years.
       c. Reform milk marketing orders to reduce milk price 
     support outlays.
       Cost savings: $1.05 billion over 5 years.
       2. Eliminate Federal support for honey.
       Cost savings: $32 million over 4 years (assuming 
     restrictive appropriations language does not continue in the 
     future).
       C. Means testing of subsidies:
       1. Restrict eligibility for benefits from price support 
     programs and reduce the payment limitation.
       Cost savings: $2.73 billion over 5 years:
       Limit farm price support payments to $50,000/person: $670 
     million over 5 years.
       Limit farm price support payments to $40,000/person: $1.28 
     billion over 5 years.
       Disqualify people whose Adjusted Gross Income exceeds 
     $100,000: $300 million over 5 years.
       Disqualify people whose gross revenue from commodity sales 
     exceeds $500,000: $670 million over 5 years.
       2. End Federal farm subsidies for individuals with annual 
     net taxable income of more than $120,000 and corporations 
     with annual net taxable income of more than $5 million.
       Cost savings: $1.04 billion over 5 years.
       3. Target CCC farm subsidy payments to farmers with off-
     farm incomes below $100,000.
       Cost savings: $470 million over 5 years (1994-1997).
       D. Cash repayments of USDA commodity loans:
       1. Require cash repayment of USDA commodity loans and allow 
     program administrators to set local repayment rates closer to 
     prevailing market prices so the Federal Government no longer 
     covers additional, unnecessary costs.
       Cost savings: $320 million in 5 years.
                   iii. agricultural export programs

       A. Export subsidies:
       1. Eliminate the Export Enhancement Program.
       Cost savings: $4.16 billion over 5 years.
       2. End EEP for individuals with annual net taxable income 
     of more than $120,000 and corporations with annual net 
     taxable income of more than $5 million.
       Cost savings: $6 billion over 5 years.
       B. USDA's Export Credit Programs; reduce loan guarantees 
     made and eliminate loans to high-risk borrowers:
       Cost savings: $1.14 billion over 5 years.
       C. The Market Promotion Program:
       1. Eliminate the Market Promotion Program.
       Cost savings: $500 million over 5 years.
       2. Permanently extend MPP at the lower OBRA-93 level.
       Cost savings: $2.6 million over 5 years.
       3. End Federal MPP subsidies for individuals with annual 
     net taxable income over $120,000 and corporations with annual 
     net taxable income over $5 million.
       Cost savings: $500,000 over 5 years.


               iv. disaster assistance and crop insurance

       A. Replace the Federal Crop Insurance Program with standing 
     authority for disaster assistance:
       Cost savings: $1.6 billion over 5 years.
       B. Require the FCIC to set premiums and pay indemnities 
     based on an areas performance rather than that of an 
     individual farmer
       Cost savings: $551 million over 5 years.

   Chapter 12: Proposals To Reform Miscellaneous Entitlement Programs


                 general science, space, and technology

       A. Charge market prices for electricity sold by power 
     marketing administrations:
       Cost savings: $4.8 billion over 5 years.


                 ii. national resources and environment

       A. Improve pricing for commercial and recreational uses of 
     public land:
       1. Reform Federal water policy.
       Option 1: Allow farmers who grow agricultural commodities 
     that are in surplus to receive only one of the Federal 
     subsidies: either crop price support payments or Federally 
     subsidized water.
       Option 2: Require that farms of more than 960 acres be 
     charged the full cost of Federal irrigation water. Although 
     current law contains this requirement, it is often 
     circumvented because of the vague definition of the term 
     ``farm.''
       Cost savings: $110 million over 5 years.
       2. Raise recreation fees at Federal facilities.
       Cost savings: $720 million over 5 years.
       B. Change the revenue-sharing formula from a gross-receipt 
     to a net-receipt basis for commercial activities on Federal 
     land:
       Cost savings: $880 million over 5 years.
       C. Index nuclear waste disposal fees for inflation:
       Cost savings: $255 million over 5 years.
       D. Charge royalties for hardrock mining on Federal lands:
       Cost savings: $280 million over 5 years.


                    III. COMMERCE AND HOUSING CREDIT

       A. Increase FCC user fees to cover all costs currently 
     financed through the general fund:
       [[Page S1327]] Cost savings: $575 million over 5 years.
       B. Charge a user fee on commodity futures and options 
     contract transactions:
       Cost savings: $310 million over 5 years.
       C. Grant the Government an option to buy shares of 
     depository institutions that convert from mutual to stock 
     form:
       Cost savings: $310 millon over 5 years.


                           IV. TRANSPORTATION

       A. Establish charges for airport takeoff and landing slots:
       Cost savings: $1.5 billion over 5 years.
       B. Establish user fees for ATC services:
       Cost savings: $7 billion over 5 years.
       C. Impose user fees on the Inland waterway system:
       Cost savings: $3.14 billion over 5 years.


                              V. EDUCATION

       A. Reduce subsidies to students for Stafford loans:
       1. Require students to pay in-school interest.
       Cost savings: $9.56 billion over 5 years.
       2. Raise the Loan Origination Fee.
       Cost savings: $1.53 billion over 5 years.
       B. Reduce Stafford loan spending by including home equity 
     in the determination of financial need:
       Cost savings: $400 million over 5 years.


                            VII. ALLOWANCES

       A. Charge a penalty for early redemptions of saving bonds:
       Cost savings: $240 million over 5 years.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Now, Mr. President, if you want your knees to buckle, 
read that. Dick Armey is right. If you want your knees to buckle, read 
that one, or listen to the discretionary cuts. I would not favor half 
of these. I probably would not favor 70 percent of these cuts. I have 
not gone down and said what I would cut.
  I am trying, as I would, when I was chairman of the Budget Committee, 
to pose to the colleagues here the art of the possible. Here is what is 
necessary. Here is what has to be done. And then, assuming it is done, 
the key point here is those are 1996 outlay amounts. That amounts in 
1997 to only $58.407 billion in cuts. If you look at 1997, you have to 
have $74 billion in spending cuts, so you are still $16 billion shy 
next year when you work on the budget. The same will be true the year 
after that, and the year after that, and the year after that.
  You see, this is what my colleagues have to understand. If they do 
not put the budget on a glidepath to zero now, you will always be 
playing catch-up. The next thing you know, you'll be moving the 
targets.
  Now, let us not talk fancifully. I will never forget, Mr. President, 
when the distinguished Senator from New Mexico--we all act like 
government started up when Gingrich came to town. We have been in 
government for quite a while, and several items in the contract, of 
course, we not only have favored, we cosponsored 10 years ago. The 
line-item veto. I used the line-item veto as a Governor 35 years ago. 
So it is not an invention in a contract. Last year, the distinguished 
Senator from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, and I tried again. We got 53 
votes. The idea is separately enroll individual items so the President 
can veto legislation like we do at the State level.
  Many of these so-called new ideas have been tried before. Back in 
1986, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Budget 
Committee got nettled in the debate because colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle were chastising him saying, ``Why don't you put in the cuts? 
Why don't you put in the cuts?'' So in a fit of, let us call it, 
sobriety, the Domenici-Chiles modified amendment was introduced 
expressing the sense of the Senate that some 44 programs be terminated. 
And I will ask that the list be included in the Record. You hear the 
same song in the Contract With America. We are going to do away with 
the ICC. We are going to do away with weatherization assistance. We are 
going to do away with the community services block grants and the 
travel and tourism administration.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those programs be 
reprinted at this particular point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Reagan Budget Cuts--1986

       Work incentive program (WIN).
       General revenue sharing.
       Conrail.
       Trade adjustment assistance to firms.
       Appalachian Regional Commission.
       Economic Development Administration.
       Urban development action grants.
       U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration.
       Export-Import Bank direct loans.
       Community services block grant.
       Rental housing development action grant (HODAG).
       Section 312 rehabilitation loan fund.
       Postal Subsidy.
       FEMA supplemental emergency food and shelter.
       Advanced communications technology satellite.
       OPIC insurance programs.
       Amtrak.
       Interstate Commerce Commission (terminations and 
     transfers).
       Washington Metro construction grants.
       Maritime cargo preference expansion.
       EPA sewage treatment grants.
       Impact aid (type ``b'' students).
       Library programs.
       Small higher education programs.
       State student incentive grants.
       College housing loans (new loans).
       Public Health Service (health profession subsidies).
       Legal Services Corporation.
       Certain soil conservation programs.
       Federal crop insurance program.
       Rural housing loans/grants.
       Small Business Administration (eliminations and transfers).
       Rental rehabilitation grants.
       Section 8 moderate rehabilitation.
       Section 202 elderly and handicapped housing.
       Section 108 loan guarantee program.
       Rural development program.
       Rural Electrification Administration subsidies.
       Weatherization assistance program.
       LANDSAT (eliminate future subsidies for contractors).
       Sea grant and coastal zone management grant programs.
       Juvenile justice grants.
       Justice State-local assistance grants.
       Public debt reimbursements to Federal Reserve Banks.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. So the Senator from New Mexico, under the best of the 
best dismantlers of Government, President Ronald Reagan, made the 
motion that we terminate these programs. In other words, what he did 
was take the Reagan spending cuts.
  Everyone has said, ``Oh, if they only took the cuts.'' They have 
claimed that Congress went ahead with increases in defense and other 
programs, but never enacted the cuts like we were supposed to do. We 
tried with a sense-of-the-Senate. Do you know how many votes they got? 
Mr. President, 14 votes out of the 100.
  So we have a track record. We have tried it before, 10 years ago. We 
will try it again. But we have to face the facts as the facts face us. 
We could not get it done then and I am sincerely concerned that we will 
not get it done now. But that is no reason not to try. I am not trying 
to mislead the colleagues. I am willing to consider every spending cut 
offered by my colleagues. But my colleagues must realize that every 
dollar in savings we fail to achieve through spending reductions, we 
must make up through taxes.
  With a 5-percent VAT, we can get the job done. We had eight votes for 
this particular initiative in the Budget Committee. The distinguished 
Senator on the other side of the aisle from Minnesota, Senator 
Boschwitz, and the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Senator 
Danforth, joined with the Senator from South Carolina and we were 
conscientious about our charge. And none of us wanted to vote for 
taxes. If you want to run for reelection on this particular platform, 
do not come to South Carolina. I tried it, and barely survived. I was 
known as ``High Tax Hollings'' for putting out such proposals.
  Nowhere did the press say I was trying to cut interest taxes. Nowhere 
did the press say I was trying to cut spending. You cannot get that 
explanation on a 20-second sound bite. So they take advantage of the 
printed Record and they distort what you are trying to do.
  If we exclude the trust funds, cut spending by $406 billion, and 
enact a 5-percent VAT, we can finally eliminate the deficit by 1999. 
Even then, though, we will still have annual gross interest costs of 
$368 billion--that is more than a billion a day--on interest costs on 
the debt. So interest taxes are still on automatic pilot. It is not 
until the year 2002, when you have dropped from $368 billion to $354 
billion, that you have finally have gross interest costs on a downward 
path. But it has to be done.
  I have one sheet of paper here that outlines the scope of the 
problem. Here it is. This does not include the billions necessary for 
middle-class tax cuts. Both sides have been misguided in pandering to 
the middle class. Brother, this is no time for middle-class tax cut 
[[Page S1328]] or any other tax cut. The problem is a shortage of 
revenues. The only way to stop spending on automatic pilot, the only 
way to stop raising interest taxes is to make the spending cuts you can 
and to raise taxes. I have outlined one way of doing it.
  I am going to introduce this amendment but I want to remind my 
colleagues what we have created is a matter of record. It is what the 
distinguished Presiding Officer has come into town to confront.
  We were here and we went through this charade. We dignified it with a 
commission. This Senator went through with it with President Richard 
Milhous Nixon. He said get rid of the Government and send it back in 
block grants.
  Then came President Reagan and he had appointed a Presidential 
Advisory Committee on Federalism and the Coordinating Task Force on 
Federalism. This Senator, at the appointment of the distinguished 
President, served with other Senators.
  I ask unanimous consent that we have printed in the Record this list 
of commission members.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Presidential Advisory Committee on Federalism


                               Governors

       Gov. George Busbee (D-Georgia).
       Gov. Scott M. Matheson (D-Utah).
       Gov. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee).
       Gov. James R. Thompson (R-Illinois).
       Gov. Pierre S. DuPont IV (R-Delaware).
       Gov. Richard A. Snelling (R-Vermont).


                           State Legislators

       Representative T. W. (Tom) Stivers (R-Idaho).
       Senator Ross O. Doyen (R-Kansas).
       Senator Ann Lindeman (R-Arizona).
       Speajer Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Maryland).
       Speaker John J. Hainkel, Jr. (D-Louisiana).
       Assemblyman Dean Rhoads (R-Nevada).


                                 Mayors

       Mayor Edward I. Koch (D-New York City).
       Mayor William H. Hudnut III (R-Indianapolis).
       Mayor Margaret Hance (R-Phoenix).
       Mayor Ferd Harrison (R-Scotland Neck, N.C.).
       Mayor Tom Moody (R-Columbus, Ohio).


                            County Officials

       J. Richard Conder (D-Richmond County, N.C.).
       Roy Orr (D-Dallas County, Tex.).
       William Murphy (R-Rensselaer County, N.Y.).
       Sandra Smoley (R-Sacramento County, Calif.).
       Bruce Neslande (Nonpartisan-Orange County, Calif.).
       Donald L. Smith (R-Anchorage Municipality, Alaska).


                      Members of the U.S. Senate.

       Senator William V. Roth, Jr. (R-Delaware).
       Senator David Durenberger (R-Minnesota).
       Senator Pete V. Domenici (R-New Mexico).
       Senator David L. Boren (D-Oklahoma).
       Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-South Carolina).
       Senator Paul Laxalt (R-Nevada).


                Members of the House of Representatives

       Representative Richard T. Schulze (R-Pennsylvania).
       Representative Richard Bolling (D-Missouri).
       Representative L. H. Fountain (D-North Carolina).
       Representative Clarence Brown (R-Ohio).
       Representative Frank Horton (R-New York).
       Representative Jack Brooks (D-Texas).


                            Private Citizens

       F. Clifton White.
       Dr. Robert B. Hawkins.
       C. D. Ward.
       Former Senator Clifford Hanson.
       Former Gov. Otis Bowen.


               The Coordinating Task Force on Federalism

       Senator Paul Laxalt, Chairman.
       Secretary Terrel Bell.
       Secretary Samuel Pierce
       Secretary Donald Regan.
       Secretary Richard Schweiker.
       Secretary James Watt.
       Director David Stockman.
       Edwin Meese III.
       James A. Baker III.
       Richard S. Williamson.
       Martin Anderson.
       Robert Carleson.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. We went into the Cabinet room and sat around the table. 
You could see the beginning of unfunded mandates for the cities, the 
counties, and the States. They said get rid of the Government, get rid 
of it, send it back to the cities, the counties, the States. But what 
they did was eliminate the money in October 1986. The first bill that 
the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Senator Howard Baker, 
introduced was a revenue sharing bill. I had already introduced mine on 
February 1, 1967. We had both come from State governments and we were 
complaining then about unfunded mandates.
  So this has gone on from 1971 to 1995, some 24 years. I came to 
Washington and identified with the problem. We did get revenue sharing. 
But then, we unfunded the edicts of the Congress in October 1986, when 
we did away with revenue sharing.
  Coming right to the point, I want to refer to the former director of 
the Office of Management and Budget, David Stockman. In the spring of 
1992 he had an article that appeared in a magazine called the New 
Perspective entitled ``America Is Not Overspending.'' That ought to 
throw everybody into shock.
  The distinguished Congressman from Georgia along with our friend, 
Congressman Kasich are putting government on trial. But I do not mean 
to tuck tail and run, as Lyndon says. I mean to try the case.
  Where we can get a line-item veto, where we can get a balanced budget 
amendment, where we can get progress on reducing the deficit, they will 
have my vote. If we do not adulterate the legislation, like the 
unfunded mandates bill. I did not realize many of the changes made in 
S. 1 until the distinguished Senator from West Virginia came here and 
brought them to my attention.
  I publicly stated that I favored the legislation to address the 
problem of unfunded mandates. Such a bill was brought to the floor last 
year.
  Unfortunately, in their zeal to demonstrate how they can really run 
government up here, the Republicans have been overreaching. I want to 
help them. But I do not want to end up with a problem worse than the 
one we started with. If we do not move in at this particular hour in 
history, how will we ever get on top of this spending hemorrhage?
  Let me get back to David Stockman. I quote:

       The root problem goes back to the July 1981 frenzy of 
     excessive and imprudent tax cutting that shattered the 
     Nation's fiscal stability. A noisy faction Republicans have 
     willfully denied this giant mistake of fiscal governance and 
     their own culpability in it ever since. Instead, they have 
     incessantly poisoned the political debate with the mindless 
     stream of antitax venom while pretending that economic growth 
     and spending cuts alone could cure the deficit. It ought to 
     be obvious by now that we cannot grow our way out.

  Mr. President, very quietly, let me read that first sentence because 
it is almost heretic. ``The root problem goes back to the July 1981 
frenzy of excessive and imprudent tax cutting that shattered the 
Nation's fiscal stability.'' That is exactly what we have going on now. 
History repeats itself. As Ronald Wilson Reagan says, ``Here we go 
again.''
  As Governor of South Carolina, my first order of business was to 
raise some taxes, balance the budget, and get for the first time in our 
history a triple-A credit rating. Moody's has raised us back to us a 
triple-A credit rating. We had lost it for the past couple of years. 
Standard and Poor's still has yet to do so. But the need to get that 
triple-A credit rating reveals a funny juxtaposition of politicians 
running for office. I cannot run for Governor of South Carolina unless 
I promise to pay the bill; I cannot run for Senator of South Carolina 
unless I promise not to pay the bill.
   As a House Member of the South Carolina House of Representatives in 
1950 I was trying to catch up with North Carolina. They had passed 
their sales tax for education in 1936. Following suit, I authored the 
sales tax. I heard arguments about its regressivity. But if we had not 
passed that 3-percent sales tax--which now is at 5 percent--we would 
never have had the schools. In addition to balancing the State budget, 
we would never have had the educational system to attract investment, 
to attract blue chip corporations, to attract Japanese and German 
industries.
  I was here in Washington the last time we had a balanced Federal 
budget. We called back over to Marvin Watson and said, ``Ask the 
President if we can cut another $5 billion.'' The entire budget--
Medicare, defense, domestic discretionary, everything else, interest on 
the national debt--was $178 billion. 
[[Page S1329]] Watson called back and said, ``President Johnson said 
cut it another $5 billion.'' We cut it and gave President Richard 
Milhous Nixon a balanced budget.
  I am hearing all this stuff about a revolution 40 years in the 
making. They are getting away with a lot of flourish and rhetoric and 
headlines. But I have listened now since the beginning of the session, 
and somehow, some way we have to develop some bipartisanship. We are 
never going to do that unless we can get some truth in budgeting.
  If they do not want to raise taxes and want to balance the budget 
only through spending cuts, then they are whistling Dixie. You have to 
do both. You have to freeze everything to begin with, obey the caps, 
and then follow with additional spending cuts. And even with the 
spending cuts and the 5-percent VAT, you do not really get into the 
black until 1999.
  Mr. President it is a very, very difficult thing that the contract 
has taken up. That is why this Senator is not trying to out-headline 
the Republicans on the other side of the aisle. I prefer headway to 
headlines. I will continue to work with my friends on the other side of 
the aisle. I worked last year with Republicans on the 
telecommunications superhighway. We have had hearings galore on the 
subject and we had a bipartisan bill 18 to 2 out of the committee.
  The overwhelming majority of Republicans, with an overwhelming 
majority of Democrats, in a bipartisan information superhighway bill 
that had been worked out with various groups who all wanted these 
services to be extended to the poor and to the public education 
systems. That was ready to be passed. But the distinguished majority 
leader--and it is of record--the Senator from Kansas held it up. I do 
not say that lightly. I can show it to you in the Record. We were ready 
to go bipartisan then, and I am ready to go bipartisan now. Let us not 
come with just the headline and no headway. As Tennessee Ernie Ford 
sang, ``Sixteen tons and what do you get, another day older and deeper 
in debt.''
  Mr. President in closing I ask unanimous consent that a table 
entitled ``Senator Hollings on Truth in Budgeting'' which I have been 
referring to throughout my speech be printed in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                 Senator Hollings on Truth in Budgeting

       Reality No. 1: $1.2 trillion in spending cuts necessary.
       Reality No. 2: Not enough savings in entitlements. Yes, 
     welfare reform but job program will cost; savings 
     questionable. Yes, health reform can and should save some, 
     but slowing 10 percent growth to 5 percent--not enough 
     savings. No, none on Social Security; off-budget again.
       Reality No. 3: Hold the line budget on Defense--no savings.
       Reality No. 4: Savings must come from freezes, cuts in 
     domestic discretionary--not enough to stop hemorrhage in 
     interest costs.
       Reality No. 5: Taxes necessary to stop hemorrhage in 
     interest costs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deficit CBO Jan. 1995 (using trust funds)........      207      224      225      253      284      297      322
Freeze discretionary outlays after 1998..........        0        0        0      -19      -38      -58      -78
Spending cuts....................................      -37      -74     -111     -128     -146     -163     -180
Interest savings.................................       -1       -5      -11      -20      -32      -46      -64
Total savings ($1.2 trillion)....................      -38      -79     -122     -167     -216     -267     -322
Remaining deficit using trust funds..............      169      145      103       86       68       30        0
Remaining deficit excluding trust funds..........      287      264      222      202      185      149      121
5 percent VAT....................................       96      155      172      184      190      196      200
Net deficit excluding trust funds................      187       97       27     (17)     (54)    (111)    (159)
Gross debt.......................................    5,142    5,257    5,300    5,305    5,272    5,200    5,091
Average interest rate on the debt (percent)......      7.0      7.1      6.9      6.8      6.7      6.7      6.7
Interest cost on the debt........................      367      370      368      368      366      360      354
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Doesn't include billions necessary for middle-class tax cut.                                             

                           Amendment No. 182

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

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 182.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING CONGRESSIONAL 
                   ENFORCEMENT OF A BALANCED BUDGET

       It is the Sense of the Senate--
       (A) that the Congress should move to eliminate the biggest 
     unfunded mandate--interest on the national debt, which drives 
     the increasing federal burden on state and local governments, 
     and
       (B) that prior to adopting in the first session of the 
     104th Congress a joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
     the Constitution requiring a balanced budget--
       (1) the Congress set forth specific outlay and revenue 
     changes to achieve a balanced federal budget by the year 
     2002; and
       (2) enforce through the Congressional budget process the 
     requirement to achieve a balanced federal budget in the year 
     2002.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, they always say, ``He who seeks equity 
must do equity.'' If we are asking the other side to lay it out, then I 
think it is our duty over here to lay it out, too. That is what I have 
attempted to do.
  So, Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague wants to come 
back and be recognized. So 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. DODD. 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. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to commend my colleague 
from South Carolina for this amendment. I know there will be those who 
will argue that this amendment is an inappropriate amendment on this 
particular bill because we are dealing with unfunded mandates. But I 
suggest, Mr. President, that the amendment offered by the distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina is consistent fully with the matter before 
us--unfunded mandates. In the likely event that we adopt a 
constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, particularly one 
that includes a requirement that three-fifths of the Congress approve 
new tax increases, we will be imposing a huge mandate on States and 
localities. It may not be a de jure mandate, but it will be a de facto 
mandate.
  What Senator Hollings is suggesting with this amendment is a radical 
notion, I suppose, in the minds of some. It is an outrageous idea that 
we should have some idea of how this constitutional mandate requiring a 
balanced budget in 7 years is going to be achieved. I know there are 
those who think it is unfair to be asking such questions, but they are 
questions we are asked as Members of the U.S. Senate by our 
constituents all the time.
  Many of our constituents are telling us, too, that they support a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We all know the polling 
numbers on this issue. Eighty percent of the American public supports a 
balanced budget amendment as long as it remains a slogan or a simple 
statement of principle. They are all for the concept of the balanced 
budget. But what happens when people are presented with various 
spending cut options?
  If you say, ``Do you want a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget?'' They say, ``Absolutely, we want that.'' But if you then say, 
``You understand, of course, that may include some cuts in Social 
Security.'' They say, ``Well, now, wait a minute, you did not tell me 
that.'' You say, ``How about Medicare?'' They say, ``Wait, you are 
getting a little far afield here. I said I want the budget in balance. 
That is what I want. I did not say I wanted Social Security or Medicare 
cut.'' You say, ``How about education?'' They say, ``That is not what I 
meant either. Just balance that budget.'' Then you start talking about 
how you get there from here, and you start to get what you always get. 
It is like the old saying that ``Everyone wants to go to Heaven, but no 
one wants to die.'' So we all want a balanced budget but we are all 
very nervous about how you get there.
   [[Page S1330]] Let me back up a bit, because I listened to my 
colleague from South Carolina talk about his history on this issue, and 
he has a distinguished one, going back to the very days the Budget Act 
was adopted. He is one of only two people who served on the original 
committee and chaired the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. President, I am familiar with the Senator's record because I 
worked with him on a number of important budget issues going back to my 
first days here in the early 1980's. I was the second Democrat after 
the Senator from South Carolina to cosponsor the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 
legislation. Really, it was the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings-Dodd bill. I 
thought that the Senator from Texas and the Senator from New Hampshire 
and the Senator from South Carolina had a good idea, to try statutorily 
to get our arms around the budget of the United States. I will not take 
a back seat to anybody in our efforts in try to achieve that goal.
  In 1982, I offered a requirement that any new increase in spending 
must be paid for fully--a pay-as-you-go budget. I offered this 
amendment from the very last chair in the far corner of this floor when 
I was the most junior Member of this body. I got 22 votes. I was in the 
minority in those days, not unlike today. Had we done it then, we are 
told we could have actually had the Federal budget in balance by 1986 
or 1987. With all the talk about the need for constitutional 
amendments, there are those of us who have been through these battles, 
trying all sorts of ways to inject discipline into the process.
  I hope, as we examine the constitutional amendment, we would answer 
our constituents' questions. They want to know how we are going to do 
this. That's what this amendment requires. It simply says if you're 
going to talk the talk of balanced budget, you've got to walk the walk 
of how you get there. I hope it will be adopted so that we will be able 
to lay out to the taxpayers in our communities exactly how we are going 
to keep the promises that a balanced budget amendment would require.
  The GOP spending cut plan is like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates--
you don't know what you're going to get when you dip your hand in.
  All the Senator from South Carolina is suggesting is that we have a 
description of the chocolates before we put them in our mouths. 
Otherwise, we're talking about a huge potential stomach ache.
  That is all this amendment asks. It does not say, ``Do not cut in 
these areas.'' It just says, ``Tell us. If this is what you are going 
to do, at least somebody outline it.''
  I might point out, there are some significant proposals outlining how 
we might do some of this. I would like to lay one of these out, if I 
may.
  Mr. President, this is a chart based on the Republican budget staff 
proposal reported in the Washington Times earlier this month. This is 
the so-called Republican path to a balanced budget amendment in the 
year 2002.
  The deficit estimates are lower then CBO and Treasury projections, 
but they are still useful.
  As you can see, the proposal estimates that it will cost more than $1 
trillion to balance the budget over 7 years. The GOP tax cut proposal, 
according to the Republican staff analysis will cost $346 billion more.
  The Treasury Department estimates that the tax increases will be 
somewhat higher. I am not going to use these numbers, though, Mr. 
President. I will use only the staff numbers from the majority side of 
the Budget Committee so that no one can accuse me of using biased 
numbers prepared by a Democratic administration.
  The GOP proposal also says that we are not going to reduce Social 
Security. That has been said over and over and over again by the 
majority. In fact, we are told that Social Security will go up $12 
billion in the next 7 years.
  We have been also told that there will be an increase in defense 
spending of $82 billion.
  So if you take all of these numbers together--again, not numbers from 
the Democratic Policy Committee, or the Department of the Treasury, or 
even the Congressional Budget Office, but from the Republican Budget 
Committee staff--then the price tag for all of these promises is $1.53 
trillion. This is the total cost that will have to be made up by the 
year 2002 if we are going to achieve a balanced budget in that year.
  How will we pay for all of these promises? Where will they be made 
up? If we increase defense and Social Security spending, cut taxes, and 
balance the budget, what will we cut?
  This second chart shows where the cuts to pay for these promises will 
come from. According to the Republican staff numbers, more than $970 
billion will come from Medicare cuts, Medicaid cuts, and other 
mandatory spending. And $386 billion will come from nondefense 
discretionary spending.
  If we make these cuts, then we should get a debt service reduction of 
$164 billion. So that number in green here, is the number which would 
depend upon these other two numbers being achieved. And that would get 
you to $1.53 trillion, equaling the amount I mentioned earlier. That is 
how we reach balance.
  All this amendment says is, ``Would you mind giving us some idea so 
we can go back to our taxpayers and constituents and tell them 
specifically how we are going to achieve more than $1.5 trillion in 
spending cuts? Where will the cuts come from? Don't go around asking us 
to support a conclusion without giving us some idea of how we are going 
to achieve those results.''
  Earlier the Senator from South Carolina introduced into the Record, 
Mr. President, a list that was put together by our distinguished 
colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg outlining options for 
spending cuts. They include reducing student loan subsidies, means 
testing Medicare, cutting in half funding for Head Start--maybe one of 
the finest programs for children and early education ever devised--the 
maternal child health block grants, and preventive health services 
block grants, deferring military COLA's, cutting veterans benefits, and 
eliminating Medicaid transition benefits for AFDC recipients. The list 
is 50 pages long.
  I am not suggesting that these items should not be touched at all, 
but it seems to me you are beginning to get some sort of a blueprint 
here of what is involved.
  As the Senator from South Carolina pointed out, when you start 
counting whether or not you have 51 votes here for cutting out student 
loans--at the very time when working families are trying to make it 
more feasible for their kids to afford higher education--you are going 
to realize you cannot pass these cuts.
  Nor do you have the votes for cutting Head Start. I was responsible 
for the reauthorization of the Head Start Program last year. There was 
not a dissenting vote or voice out of 100 U.S. Senators on the 
reauthorization of Head Start--not one. It was passed unanimously by 
voice vote. And yet now some are talking about cutting that program in 
half.
  I do not know many Senators here who honestly believe you ought to be 
cutting Head Start in half. And if there are some, there may be 3 or 4 
or 5 or 10. I do not think there are 51 here who studied the program 
and believe it should be cut. Head Start has not been a Democratic 
program, or a Republican program--it has always enjoyed broad, 
bipartisan support.
  The distinguished Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] worked 
tirelessly to put together a good Head Start Program last year. Without 
her support, we would not have gotten it done. I am not going to speak 
for her here. But again, there was not some great battle out here on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate to reauthorize and fund Head Start.
  Does anyone really believe there are 51 votes to cut veterans 
benefits? Are we going to defer military COLA's--at a time when we are 
trying to strengthen the military budget, and attract and retain the 
most talented people we can find. Are there 51 votes? I do not think 
so.
  It seems to me, before you start jamming this into the Constitution 
we ought to think through all of these important issues. If a balanced 
budget amendment is adopted and we are unable to balance the budget, 
then we will turn the Supreme Court of the United States into a Budget 
Committee deciding every major budget 
[[Page S1331]] choice. The Supreme Court will be deciding whether or 
not the legislative branch achieved the constitutional requirement of a 
balanced budget, and then they will decide how to allocate funding 
levels.
  I remember a few years ago people railing, and I think rightfully so, 
against an unelected, lifetime appointee sitting on a bench 
legislating--legislating. I do not know how many speeches I heard in 
this body objecting to the nine members of the Supreme Court 
legislating.
  That is the business of this body, to legislate. And yet, in effect, 
we will be asking the Supreme Court of the United States to legislate 
on the budget when we do not achieve, if we do not achieve, the balance 
which is required by an amendment in the year 2002.
  So I again suggest and emphasize here what the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina is proposing makes some sense. We are likely to 
create a train wreck, an absolute train wreck.
 An absolute train wreck. Now, we have done that in the past. But the 
problem in the past was not as significant because it was a statutory 
train wreck. It did not go to the organic law of the United States. 
What is being talked about here is changing the organic law of the 
United States. Of course we know when we do that we run the risk of 
having a far more difficult time adjusting if we are wrong.

  In the 1980's, we did things by statute. We had the Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings proposal, and a number of freezes and the like. We found out 
they did not quite work as expected. When tested, the theories did not 
add up. We went back and changed the statutes and began to get on our 
feet.
  The people who paid the greatest price, of course, for our mistakes 
were middle-income workers. They always do. And, they will be 
undoubtedly called upon to do so again when the next train wreck 
occurs. We always go back to the people that fight the wars and raise 
their taxes. They are the ones who will pay the bill if this does not 
work.
  The difference here is organic law. When we change organic law and 
then discover a mistake, it is very difficult to correct. I think we 
should proceed cautiously and carefully and ask the types of questions 
that our constituents are asking of us.
  Where will the cuts be made? How will you do this? Are you really 
going to go after Medicare? We saw what happened on the surveys 
conducted on the balanced budget amendment, 80 percent or so are for 
it. But when we talk about cutting student loans, education, Medicare, 
Social Security, et cetera, the support for that amendment drops 
dramatically. I am not suggesting these programs should never be 
reduced. I would not want to suggest that we should never make changes 
in any of these programs. I would not subscribe to that view.
  I have been here long enough to know what happens when we try to make 
difficult budget choices. As I mentioned a while ago, I offered a pay-
as-you-go proposal. I did not pick out a particular program. I said how 
about paying for everything? We had 22 votes for paying for things. Now 
when we start requesting details, people start trying to take things 
entirely off the table. Forget Social Security some will say. That is 
off entirely. Others will say take defense spending off the list of any 
potential cuts. Although there is an argument being raised by some that 
we can do with a lot less, I, for one, would raise some reservations 
about that. The world is changed, more complicated, requires different 
thinking in this area.
  I do not know of anyone who really believes, at least not a majority, 
that we ought to take a meat ax to the defense budget. We have heard 
over and over again from the military leadership that it is difficult 
to retain good people. We do not have a draft any longer. We have to 
recruit, and we need the best educated, sophisticated people in the 
military that this country has to produce. And it does not make sense 
to be talking about slashing COLA's for people in the military.
  Let me again point out if I can, Mr. President, what these cuts may 
mean. A recent study by the children's defense fund reports that the 
costs of balancing the budget alone--while protecting Social Security 
and defense spending--would result in: 7.6 million children losing 
federally subsidized school lunches--I do not think there are 51 votes 
here to do that; 6.6 million children losing health care coverage 
through Medicaid; dropping more than 5 million child support cases that 
hold absent parents accountable for supporting their children; 4.3 
million children losing food stamps; and 2 million young children and 
pregnant women losing nutritional assistance through the WIC Program--
one of the strongest supported programs in Congress. The Women, 
Infants, and Children Program historically has had strong bipartisan 
support.
  This analysis does not consider the costs of financing the Contract 
With America tax breaks at all--more than 30 percent of which would 
benefit households with incomes of greater than $200,000.
  So, Mr. President, I suggest we look through the eyes of a child at 
what this means. We should face the realities here. I do not know of 
anyone in the body who honestly believes that children ought to be 
asked to pay the price. We ought to be seeing to it that they will not 
be disadvantaged. We are not talking about luxury items here. We are 
talking about basic essentials that they need. So, again, I emphasize 
that a good hard analysis of what all of this means, I think, is 
critically important for all of us.
  There is an old advertisement on television that may say it best. 
That advertisement for a Wall Street firm says, ``We make money the 
old-fashioned way.'' Well, maybe we ought to reduce the deficit the 
old-fashioned way. That is, we ought to roll up our sleeves and go to 
work on it.
  I heard a lot of talk here over the last number of weeks about 
reducing the deficit. This administration over the past 2\1/2\ years 
has achieved through the budget process real reduction in the deficit. 
That is not my conclusion. That is the conclusion of the Congressional 
Budget Office and others who have no particular ax to grind. They have 
concluded that we have achieved 3 consecutive years of deficit 
reduction, the first time since the Truman administration, to the tune 
of $700 billion in deficit relief. That is pretty significant.
  We must continue on this path. We must look at current programs, and 
ask these questions. How can we do a better job? Where can we cut back? 
We must roll up our sleeves and do the job.
  The one thing people are tired of and they expressed it strongly on 
November 8 is gimmickry. The blue smoke and mirrors, three-card monte, 
now-you-see-it, now-you-do-not, kind of approach. Dynamic scoring. 
Threatening to do away with the Bureau of Labor Statistics if they do 
not come up with the right numbers on inflation. That is not the way we 
achieve a balanced budget. We must not cook the books and make up the 
numbers. People want Members to be honest and do the real work.
  I would just warn those who are strong advocates for the 
constitutional approaches, we have gone through more than 200 years of 
history. We have amended the Constitution, Mr. President, 27 times. I 
see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and I will watch him 
carefully because if I am wrong on my numbers he will correct me with a 
nod; 27 amendments in 200 years, and I believe roughly 11,000 proposals 
to amend the Constitution of the United States in that same 206-year-
period. Some 11,000 ideas. And never once have we decided to inject 
into the Constitution economic theories that may be terribly wrong.
  We have been through a great Civil War. We have been through two 
world wars, and a Great Depression in this century. For a period of 15 
years we have had growing deficit difficulties. The last President to 
submit a balanced budget was Jimmy Carter. That was the last submission 
by a President of a balanced budget. In 1969, Lyndon Johnson submitted 
the last budget with a surplus.
  In 1981, the deficit was around $35 billion with a national debt of 
under $1 trillion. After 200 years, we had a national debt of less than 
$1 trillion. In the last 15 years, 12 years of the administrations of 
President Reagan and President Bush, we have quadrupled the national 
debt, and brought us to annual deficits hovering around $200, sometimes 
$300 billion a year.
   [[Page S1332]] We all want to do what we can to balance the budget. 
But I would strongly urge, Mr. President, that we ought not to take 15 
years of troublesome deficit spending and deny 205 years of 
constitutional history in the process. We should go through the 
statutory process, come up with whatever ideas we can. But, Mr. 
President, in my view, we will deeply regret monkeying around with the 
Constitution of the United States in trying to solve an economic 
problem that has been created over the last 15 years that is not 
insolvable. It is solvable.
  By writing this into the Constitution and inviting the courts to 
become involved in deciding these matters we will only complicate the 
problem, not make it easier. We are told all the time, some 42 States 
require a balanced budget in their State constitutions. Mr. President I 
would suggest to Senators that without exception those States have come 
up with all sorts of ideas to avoid that responsibility.
  Everyone knows about bonding. We bond things or create a capital 
budget on the side so we do not have to meet that obligation. Every 
imaginable gimmick is used to avoid making the difficult decisions. I 
can well imagine that future Congress' will employ some new dynamic 
scoring technique,
 or some new threat to the Bureau of Labor Statistics that, if they do 
not come up with an inflation number they like, they will cut off your 
budget. That is not healthy. That is not the way to be proceeding, not 
the way to be proceeding at all. It poses serious, serious problems.

  So, again, I strongly urge that we endorse unanimously the proposal 
of the Senator from South Carolina. I think it sends a positive message 
to people that we are concerned about what happens. I will tell you 
right now that it is not at all reassuring to hear the majority leader 
of the House of Representatives say that we cannot tell people out 
there how we plan to balance the budget because their ``knees will 
buckle.'' That is not a reassuring quote. I am sure my constituents are 
going to love to hear that one. We cannot tell you because your knees 
may buckle. Well, I do not mind a politician's knees buckling, but I do 
not think my constituents who depend upon Medicare should have to have 
their knees buckle or some child out there that needs a school lunch or 
Head Start Program should have to have their knees buckle in the 
process. Do they not have a right to hear from their elected 
representatives in advance what we intend to do to them?
  Is it a radical notion that somehow our constituents ought to get at 
least some blueprint of how this is going to work and who is going to 
be asked to pay? Is it outrageous of them--are they being insolent for 
demanding of their elected representatives that we give them some idea 
of how this is going to be achieved? Should we not tell them because 
they might not like what they hear? That is what we are saying, in 
effect, we should not tell them because they might not like what they 
are going to hear.
  This is not a base closure commission we are talking about; we are 
talking about making major changes to basic programs that people need 
to survive.
  Again, if the pain is going to be shared, let us do it in an 
equitable fashion. But when you take off Social Security and take out 
defense and you talk about huge tax cuts--30 percent of which go to 
people making in excess of $200,000--are you being fair? I am not 
opposed to giving people in the upper incomes a tax break. I do not 
like this class-warfare language. But in the distribution of pain, you 
have to ask if 30 percent of the tax cuts should come from the people 
in that income bracket. I do not think so if it is going to be fair and 
equitable.
  The Senator from South Carolina, I think, has proposed a reasonable 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to inform the 
American public of the important budget decisions this body intends to 
make in the years ahead.
  Mr. President, we are going to have wonderful opportunities, I 
presume, in the next few weeks, when the constitutional amendment on 
the balanced budget comes to the floor, to engage in some significant 
debate about that alone. But before we get there, I think we should lay 
out the details of how we plan to pay for our trillion dollar plus 
promises.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Hollings amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I know that we do have those Senators 
who wish to address this issue. I know that the chairman of the Senate 
Budget Committee also would like to address this particular amendment 
that we have before us. I have discussed the following unanimous-
consent request that I will be making with the sponsor of the 
amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield? Can we make it 40 
minutes? Instead of 30 minutes to a side, 40 minutes to a side?


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. All right.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 80 minutes for 
debate prior to a motion to table the pending amendment, to be equally 
divided in the usual form; that no amendments be in order prior to the 
motion to table the pending amendment; that following the conclusion or 
yielding back of time, the majority manager, or his designee, be 
recognized to make a motion to table the pending amendment; and that 
the vote on the motion to table the pending amendment occur after 4 
p.m. tomorrow.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Also the yeas and nays. I am sure the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho, if it is agreed to--and I am perfectly willing to 
agree to it as he stated it--will also ask for the yeas and nays on the 
motion to table.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. That would be my intent.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, and I do not think that 
I will, Mr. President, I have an amendment that is similar. It is very 
much within the same framework, though without reference to date. I do 
not think it would take me more than 10 or 15 minutes to offer this. I 
wonder whether I could, as a part of this unanimous-consent agreement, 
have the opportunity to offer this amendment after this debate since it 
is exactly within the same framework. I would not take a great deal of 
time with it.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. And I will object because I think there are some Senators 
who are probably not here this afternoon who may want to discuss this 
amendment.
  Also I note that no other amendments would be in order prior to the 
motion to table this amendment. I thought we would have a time in which 
we could offer amendments, possibly get some action on some of them and 
with the understanding and the request being, which was ordered, that 
such amendments would have to be offered----
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. By no later than 3 o'clock----
  Mr. GLENN. Offered by 3 o'clock tomorrow, no votes until after 4 
o'clock tomorrow.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. This specific unanimous-consent agreement is that 
there are to be no other amendments offered to this pending amendment 
of Senator Hollings.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object. Knowing that we have to 
have our amendments offered before 3 
[[Page S1333]] o'clock tomorrow, would it be possible that there could 
be a short window to allow those of us who only wish to offer 
amendments in order to meet that 3 o'clock deadline to do so and thus 
be assured that we will not end up inadvertently being precluded from 
offering our amendment?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I think that would be very appropriate. Also, I will 
note that we have had other amendments sent to the desk this morning 
which we have laid aside. In the event, for example, some of those 
Senators who wish to speak on the pending amendment are not here, I 
think it would be very much in order to lay it aside so we can continue 
to facilitate the Senators who wish to lay their amendments down.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I first would like to thank the Senator from West 
Virginia. I am really intending to make the same request. I think the 
Senator from Washington has the same interest. I would like the 
opportunity, now that I think I have clarification on this unanimous-
consent agreement, to at least be able to offer the amendment and have 
it laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's original 
request?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object. I would like Senators to have an 
opportunity to further study this amendment. There may be some of us 
who wish to speak on this amendment. Not many Senators were going to be 
around this afternoon because there was an understanding we would have 
no votes today. This does not keep the Senator from renewing the 
request on tomorrow or making the motion any time he wishes after the 
hour of 4 o'clock.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                  Amendment Nos. 183 and 184, En Bloc

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send to the desk two amendments and ask 
that they be considered as offered under the unanimous-consent 
agreement of last week and then to be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an amendment pending.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside for purposes of offering the two amendments which I have just 
sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is there 
objection to proposing the amendments en bloc? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes amendments 
     numbered 183 and 184, en bloc.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:
                           amendment no. 183

       On page 16, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       ``(iii) if funded in whole or in part, a statement of 
     whether and how the committee has created a mechanism to 
     allocate the funding in a manner that is reasonably 
     consistent with the expected direct costs to each State, 
     local, and tribal government.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 184

(Purpose: To provide a budget point of order if a bill, resolution, or 
    amendment reduces or eliminates funding for duties that are the 
        constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government)

       On page 6, strike line 3 and all that follows through line 
     10, insert the following:
       ``(ii) would reduce or eliminate the amount of 
     authorization of appropriations for--
       ``(I) Federal financial assistance that would be provided 
     to States, local governments, or tribal governments for the 
     purpose of complying with any such previously imposed duty 
     unless such duty is reduced or eliminated by a corresponding 
     amount; or
       ``(II) the exercise of powers relating to immigration that 
     are the responsibility or under the authority of the Federal 
     Government and whose reduction or elimination would result in 
     a shifting of the costs of addressing immigration expenses to 
     the States, local governments, and tribal governments; or

  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 185

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 185.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``(  ) It is the sense of the Congress that the Congress 
     shall continue its progress at reducing the annual federal 
     deficit and, when the Congress proposes to the States a 
     balanced-budget amendment, must accompany it with financial 
     information on its impact on the budget of each of the 
     States.''

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator restate what his request was?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Just asking for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Is the amendment pending?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes. I just asked for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator withhold?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I believe we set aside the Hatfield 
amendment this morning, and would that not have to be disposed of as 
the pending business before we could move on to another amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that the 
unanimous consent agreement this morning was that the Hatfield 
amendment was set aside for other amendments to be offered.
  Mr. GLENN. To be offered. That does not answer my question, I do not 
believe. Do we have to do anything to deal with the Hatfield amendment 
before we can bring up other amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Hatfield amendment has been set aside and 
thus does not need to be disposed of.
  Who seeks the floor?
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I renew my request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Yes, there appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 Amendment No. 186 to Amendment No. 185

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 186 to amendment No. 185:

  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after ``(  ) It'' and insert the following: 
     ``the sense of the Congress that the Congress should continue 
     its progress at reducing the annual federal deficit and, when 
     the Congress proposes to the States a balance-budget 
     amendment, should accompany 
     [[Page S1334]] it with financial information on its impact on 
     the budget of each of the States.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be less than 2 or 3 minutes. I 
know the Senator from Washington would want this amendment set aside, 
but if I could give the background for just a couple of minutes.
  I met with the legislative leadership back in Minnesota several weeks 
ago, and the legislature passed a resolution. I just want to read one 
paragraph:

       Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota 
     that it urges the Congress of the United States to continue 
     its progress at reducing the annual Federal deficit, and when 
     the Congress proposes to the States the balanced budget 
     amendment, to accompany it with financial information on its 
     impact on the budget of the State of Minnesota for budget 
     planning purposes.

  Mr. President, this resolution was also signed by the Governor on 
January 20. And, again, this is very much in the spirit of what the 
Senator from Connecticut was talking about and the Senator from South 
Carolina. I will, of course, take the opportunity to speak about this 
amendment at some length but not today.
  I yield the floor.


                  Amendment Nos. 187 and 188, en bloc

  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside in order that I can send two amendments to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send to the 
desk two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes en bloc 
     amendments numbered 187 and 188.

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


                           Amendment No. 187

 (Purpose: To exclude from the application of the Act agreements with 
   State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector with 
respect to environmental restoration and waste management activities of 
        the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy)
       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       The provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act also shall not apply to any agreement between the Federal 
     Government and a State, local, or tribal government, or the 
     private sector for the purpose of carrying out environmental 
     restoration or waste management activities of the Department 
     of Defense or the Department of Energy.


                           amendment no. 188

 (Purpose: To require time limitations for Congressional Budget Office 
                   estimates, and for other purposes)

       On page 21, insert between lines 13 and 14 the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) Time limitations for statements.--(A) The Director of 
     the Congressional Budget Office shall provide the statement 
     as required by this section--
       ``(i) relating to a bill or resolution ordered reported by 
     a committee, no later than one week after the date on which 
     the bill or resolution is ordered reported by the committee; 
     and
       (ii) relating to an amendment or conference report, no 
     later than one day after the date on which the amendment is 
     ordered or the conference report is submitted.
       ``(B) Failure by the Director to meet the time limitations 
     in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall vitiate the 
     provisions of subsection (c)(1)(A) of this section.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me just comment that of the two 
amendments I sent to the desk, one of them assures that we would not be 
creating a big, new, powerful bureaucracy at the Congressional Budget 
Office, and the other one relates to the effect of this bill on nuclear 
waste cleanup efforts. I am especially concerned about some at the 
Hanford site in my own State. I will be speaking on these amendments 
later, but I did want to submit them today under the previous unanimous 
consent.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has the Pastore rule run its course for the 
day?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, can I introduce a measure without the 
Pastore rule applying?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator repeat his inquiry?
  Mr. PELL. Does the Pastore rule still apply or can I talk on another 
subject?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Pastore rule has expired.
                     amendment no. 180, as modified

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to commend and thank the able 
Senator from North Dakota on modifying his metric conversion amendment. 
While I opposed the provisions of the amendment that would have imposed 
a 2-year moratorium, I am comfortable with asking the Commission on 
Unfunded Mandates, which would be created under this legislation, to 
look into the impact on States and localities of using the metric 
system.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have been a longtime proponent of 
conversion to the metric system. I believe we can't afford not to 
convert to the metric system. Not converting has already cost this 
Nation a great deal.
  The United States is one of three nations in the world, along with 
Burma and Liberia, yet to change to metrics. More importantly, the 
United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that is 
not a metric country. With a growing global economy, thanks in part to 
NAFTA and GATT, how can we as a nation expect to sell our products to 
the rest of the world when those products literally don't measure up 
with the rest of the world?
  The United States stands to gain untold millions of dollars in 
exports that we are currently losing, because our nonmetric goods are 
almost excluded from international markets. In fact, the U.S. 
Department of Commerce estimates that U.S. exports could increase by as 
much as 20 percent by offering metric-sized goods.
  Three instances of international trade problems caused by the 
production of non-metric goods highlight the difficulties caused by our 
nation's reluctance to go metric.
  Saudi Arabia rejected a shipment of General Electric appliances 
because the power cords were 6 feet long rather than 2 meters as 
required by Saudi law.
  A middle-eastern company was forced to rewire all the electronic 
equipment it imported from the United States because standard American 
wire sizes are different from international standards.
  Countries around the world have great difficulty locating American 
lumber mills willing to produce cut lumber in metric sizes.
  Mr. President, I agree that the Federal Government should not require 
States to do that which it is unwilling to do. In that regard, I have 
and will continue to work to see that all portions of the Federal 
Government comply with laws already on the books and that it leads the 
way in converting to the metric system.
  I am confident that the more we study the value of the metric system, 
the more we will find that not joining the rest of the world will only 
cost us more in the long run.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 182

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to take just a very few minutes to 
address the Hollings amendment. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. 
It talks about the importance of interest on the national debt as far 
as being an unfunded mandate. But in part B, it says that prior to 
adopting, in the first session of the 104th Congress, a joint 
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution requiring a 
balanced budget, a sense-of-the-Senate, then 
[[Page S1335]] one, that the Congress set forth specific outlay in 
revenue changes to achieve the balanced Federal budget by the year 
2002; two, enforce the congressional budget process, the requirement to 
achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002.
  Let me address that briefly. I thought originally maybe that this did 
not have any place being addressed on the unfunded mandates 
legislation. This just says that we want to know in advance what the 
impact is going to be. In other words, it is truth in legislating, as 
best we can tell that truth, in advance.
  I submit that is what this unfunded mandate legislation is all about. 
We are trying to determine what the impact is in advance, and tell 
States and local communities just exactly what Federal mandates are 
going to do to them in advance. And we require the Congressional Budget 
Office to actually spell out the dollar impacts on them in advance.
  That is what Senator Hollings is proposing with this legislation. Why 
should we not do this? Why should we not, to the best of our ability, 
say how a balanced budget amendment, if it goes into effect, will be 
dealt with? That is exactly what we are trying to do with this unfunded 
mandates legislation as it deals with the States and local communities.
  Apropos to this, I think when we come to consideration of a balanced 
budget amendment, I read some figures over the weekend, I believe in 
one of the columns, that if we take the things that everyone seems to 
say are off limits in the House and here also--Social Security, 
Medicare, interest on the national debt, and defense, those four 
items--I do not know whether those can all be taken out and made exempt 
from any consideration when we get into budget cutting or not. If we 
cannot, if some of those come in, I say to the Social Security 
recipients that some of your benefits are in danger. The same thing is 
true with Medicare. We know we have to pay interest on the national 
debt. We do not want to cut defense. We feel it has been cut enough 
already.
  So if you leave Social Security, Medicare, interest on the national 
debt, and national defense off budget, or off limits, what does that 
leave? As was pointed out in the column I read over the weekend, that 
then would require approximately a little over a 30-percent cut in all 
the other functions of Government; a 30-percent cut in all the other 
functions of Government. If you take Social Security, Medicare, 
interest on the national debt, and national defense off budget, it 
would be a 30-percent cut in every other program.
  If we applied that across the board, this means that next time you 
climb on an airliner after this, maybe, you will know that 30 percent 
of FAA funds; 30 percent of National Transportation Safety Board funds; 
30 percent of CDC, the Centers for Disease Control funds, trying to 
deal with the AIDS problem, an enormous problem; 30 percent of NIH 
funds, the National Institutes of Health dealing with cancer problems; 
FDA, trying to see what drugs are safe, are cut. You may say: We will 
not deal with any of those; we would leave those fully funded. What 
else gets cut? What else gets cut in that situation?
  How about immigration? Do we want additional restrictions on 
immigration? Do we want to provide the people to firm up the borders? 
Would that get its 30-percent cut? How about farm subsidies? There is 
an attractive one.
 We are going to cut these 30 percent or more to make up for keeping 
something else from this 30-percent cut. Then there are prisons, and we 
could go on and on. We are dealing in this unfunded mandate legislation 
mainly with the impact on the States and local communities.

  What do the States get right now? States, right now, under 
discretionary and entitlement funding, receive about $230 billion a 
year, about 70 of that in discretionary funding and about 160 in 
entitlements. This is broken down into Medicaid, for instance, and $173 
billion goes into Federal and State, total, for Medicaid; 57 percent of 
that is Federal, and 43 percent is State; that is $230 billion total.
  I use that figure for this reason. If we pass something that says 
that we are not going to say what we are going to cut, we are just 
going to do that after we, in effect, threaten ourselves and say, OK, 
we are going to force ourselves to buy a balanced budget amendment to 
make these decisions but we are not going to say in advance where the 
decisions are made, then I submit that the States with what they 
receive now, what is given to them now for all these various programs, 
that $230 billion is going to be a very, very attractive target for 
budget cutters looking for some way to balance the budget without 
getting into cuts on Social Security, Medicare, interest on the 
national debt, or defense.
  What Senator Hollings has proposed is a how-to piece of legislation--
knowing what we are going to do, giving us an idea of what we are going 
to do in advance to get to a balanced budget. All of us want to get to 
a balanced budget. Certainly, I do. I do not think there is anybody 
here who does not want to get to a balanced budget. What Senator 
Hollings says is let everybody, the States included, know in advance 
whether they will be the ones who will be unfairly dealt with in this 
other area if we pass a balanced budget amendment. Will the efforts to 
balance the budget then come out of the State's hide of $230 billion 
that we send from the Federal Treasury to the States every year?
  Surely we would not take the other tack and say on Senator Hollings' 
amendment that we would adopt in the first session a joint resolution 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, 
one, the Congress should not set forth specific outlay and revenue 
changes. Surely we would never add that should not and prohibit anyone 
from saying exactly how this is going to affect anyone by prohibiting 
the listing of what the outlay and revenue effects would be. So all he 
said is that in the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, the 
Congress set forth specific outlay and revenue changes to achieve a 
balanced Federal budget by 2002. It seems to me that we are just trying 
to predict and make forecastable what is happening between the Federal 
Government and the States with this unfunded mandate legislation.
  All Senator Hollings is asking in his proposed amendment, it seems to 
me, is that we do the same advanced kind of planning in trying to get 
where the cuts or where the revenues would come from, what the impact 
would be, the amounts, and trying to determine these things in advance.
  So, Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Hollings' amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, earlier I had offered two of the three 
amendments which I have reserved for the purposes of having them before 
the Senate prior to the 3 p.m. deadline tomorrow.
  I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside for the singular purpose of allowing me to offer the third 
amendment for consideration at a later date.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 189

                (Purpose: To change the effective date)

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
  The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment numbered 
189.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 33, strike lines 10 through 12 and insert the 
     following:
       This title shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and shall apply to legislation considered on and 
     after such date.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Iowa will 
yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to the Senator 
from Michigan without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   [[Page S1336]] The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendments 172 to 177, which I sent to 
the desk last Thursday night, be called up at this time, stated, and 
then be immediately set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendments No. 172 through 177

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send a group of amendments to the desk, 
en bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes amendments 
     numbered 172 through 177, en bloc.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:
                           AMENDMENT NO. 172

 (Purpose: To provide that title II shall apply only after January 1, 
                                 1996)

       On page 38, after line 25, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect with respect to regulations proposed on or January 1, 
     1996.''
                                                                    ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 173

       On page 26, between lines 5 and 6 insert the following:
       (e) Requests From Senators.--At the written request of a 
     Senator, the Director shall, to the extent practicable, 
     prepare an estimate of the direct cost of a Federal 
     intergovernmental mandate contained in a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or motion of such Member.
                                                                    ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 174

(Purpose: To provide that if a committee makes certain determinations, 
         a point of order will not lie, and for other purposes)

       On page 17, insert between lines 17 and 18 the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Committee determination of mandate disadvantageous to 
     private sector; waiver of point of order.--If a committee of 
     authorization of the Senate or the House of Representatives 
     determines based on the statement required under paragraph 
     (3)(C) that there would be a significant competitive 
     disadvantage to the private sector if a Federal mandate 
     contained in the legislation to which the statement applies 
     were waived for State, local, and tribal governments or the 
     costs of such mandate to the State, local, and tribal 
     governments were paid by the Federal Government, then no 
     point of order under subsection (c)(1)(B) will lie.
                                                                    ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 175

  (Purpose: To provide for Senate hearings on title I, and to sunset 
                       title I in the year 2002)

       On page 33, strike out lines 9 through 12 and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 107. SENATE JOINT HEARINGS ON UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES.

       No later than December 31, 1998, the Senate Governmental 
     Affairs Committee and the Senate Budget Committee shall hold 
     joint hearings on the operations of the amendments made by 
     this title and report to the full Senate on their findings 
     and recommendations.

     SEC. 108. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall--
       (1) take effect on January 1, 1996;
       (2) apply only to legislation considered on or after 
     January 1, 1996; and
       (3) have no force or effect on and after January 1, 2002.
                                                                    ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 176

  (Purpose: To clarify the scope of the declaration that a mandate is 
                              ineffective)

       On page 24, line 18, strike out ``mandate to be 
     ineffective'' and insert in lieu thereof ``mandate to be 
     ineffective as applied to State, local, and tribal 
     governments''.
                                                                    ____

                           amendment no. 177

         (Purpose: To clarify use of the term ``direct cost'')

       On page 14, line 19 strike ``expected''.
       On page 22, line 12 strike ``estimated''.
       On page 22, line 22 strike ``estimated''.
       On page 23, line 2 strike ``estimated''.
       On page 23, lines 4 and 5 strike ``a specific dollar amount 
     estimate of the full'' and insert in lieu thereof ``the''.
       On page 24, line 8 strike ``estimated''.
       On page 24, line 15 strike ``estimated''.

  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 190

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the exclusion of 
  Social Security from calculations required under a balanced budget 
                     amendment to the Constitution)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, while I know we are not considering it 
today, there is much discussion going on around this town and the 
country about our upcoming consideration of the balanced budget 
amendment. I do not want to delay action on the bill before us, but I 
believe it is critical that we ease the fears of millions of older 
Americans who are worried about their security.
  I have long supported a balanced budget amendment, and I expect to do 
so again this year. There have been a number of issues raised 
concerning the amendment--should there be a supermajority requirement 
for tax increases; should there be truth in budgeting to require that 
the cuts necessary to reach a balanced budget by 2002 be specified; 
should we make provision for times of recession when there are more 
demands on the Federal Government and tax receipts are down? Each of 
these questions is very important and should be given the attention 
they deserve. But, Mr. President, the one issue that is of greatest 
concern, and the one I think necessary to address immediately by this 
body, is whether Social Security should be allowed to be cut as part of 
the balanced budget amendment.
  Should Social Security funds be included along with all the receipts 
and debits in calculating whether we have a balanced budget? I believe 
we need to set the record straight about where the Senate stands on 
this critical point. I hope the Senate could go on record unanimously 
on this so that we can allay the fears that literally millions of older 
Americans have.
  I have received hundreds of calls, and even more letters, from older 
Iowans who are scared to death that their Social Security is going to 
be cut to balance the budget. Almost all of them subsist on little or 
nothing more than their monthly Social Security check. They live on 
fixed incomes and are struggling to meet the basics--pay their food, 
utilities, and medical bills. A cut in Social Security would literally 
mean for many not enough to eat or enough to pay heating, phone, 
medical bills, and transportation.
  To bring this home, I would like to read excerpts from letters a few 
Iowans have written me. I have a letter here dated January 2, from Lime 
Springs, IA:

       Dear Senator Harkin: Will you please vote against any more 
     cuts in Medicare and Social Security. I am an 87-year-old 
     widow with Social Security of $440 a month, and I am trying 
     to stay off welfare. It is almost impossible for old people 
     who depend on Social Security to live anymore. Please help 
     us.

  Another letter is dated January 4.

       * * * I am a widow, age 78. I have been alone for 29 years 
     and never able to accumulate an estate, bonds, CDs, et 
     cetera. My income is $650 a month Social Security, and out of 
     that I must pay rent, electric, food, health insurance, 
     medical bills, doctors, prescriptions, et cetera, and I am 
     just barely able to cover the above expenses. There is no 
     money left over for clothes, recreation, et cetera, and I 
     would appreciate it if you would reject any cuts in Social 
     Security and Medicare.

  Another letter is dated January 5 from Jefferson, IA. It says:

       * * * We are semi-retired farmers facing higher property 
     tax, higher crop expenses and lower prices. If we don't have 
     money, we go without. Because my health has forced my 
     retirement at 62 years of age, I am now receiving a ``very 
     generous'' $334 a month Social Security. Now subtract $46.10 
     for Medicare, $56 Blue Cross supplemental, and then try to 
     spread it thin enough to pay for heart, diabetes and 
     arthritis medication at $3,000 per year.
       We have worked hard, still paying on some farmland, knowing 
     that if either of us need to enter a nursing home, it will be 
     gone. Social Security is not welfare.

  Well, I have a lot of letters like this and I am sure, Mr. President, 
you and other Senators are receiving letters like this from your 
constituents.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am about to send to the desk I believe 
is eminently reasonable and should be quickly passed by this body. It 
is relatively short and straightforward.
  I will not read the whole thing.
  It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It is supported by findings 
that over 42 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, 
including 3 million children, and 5 million disabled workers; that 
Social Security is only the pension program for 60 percent of older 
Americans. Almost 60 percent of the 
[[Page S1337]] older beneficiaries depend on Social Security for at 
least 50 percent of their income; 25 percent of recipients depend on it 
for 90 percent of their income. Without it, 15 million Americans will 
be thrown into poverty.
  Basically, it is just a sense of the Senate that any joint resolution 
providing for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution 
passed by the Senate shall specifically exclude Social Security from 
the calculations used to determine if the Federal budget is in balance.
  Mr. President, when you talk about the average Social Security 
recipient, you are talking about people of very modest means. The 
average monthly Social Security payment now is $679 a month. That is 
$8,148 a year, just above the poverty level for a household of one. As 
I said, for many senior citizens, Social Security represents 90 percent 
or more of their entire income and it is particularly true of older 
widows. For the majority of older widows, Social Security represents 
the bulk of what they have to live on. So I understand them writing me 
letters saying they are fearful of these cuts.
  Mr. President, I should also note that I am not just hearing from the 
elderly. I am also hearing from middle-age workers who are concerned 
about the surplus in the Social Security trust funds that will be 
necessary to pay the benefits when they retire. They are worried 
because they know it may be just too tempting for politicians to dip 
into the growing Social Security trust fund surpluses to pay down the 
deficit. And they have every reason to be worried.
  Today, the Social Security surplus stands at about one-half trillion 
dollars. That is right. The Social Security trust fund has a surplus of 
one-half trillion dollars,--$500 billion. By the year 2010, the Social 
Security surplus is projected to reach $2.1 trillion. And by 2020, the 
Social Security trust fund will grow to an astounding $3 trillion. That 
surplus, nearly two times the entire Federal budget for this year, will 
be very tempting to dip into to pay down the deficit.
  Some will say a little out will not hurt us. But, in fact, Mr. 
President, in the coming years, we will need to add to that surplus, 
not take away from it.
  The current projections are that even with a $3 trillion surplus in 
the year 2020, the system will go bankrupt by around the year 2030, 
after paying benefits to the baby boomers who will be retiring. So 
about 35 years from now--and we have time within that 35 years to make 
the necessary adjustment. So we need to make adjustments within the 
next 35 years to further build up the surpluses after 2020 so that 
those who are working now can be assured that their Social Security 
will be there when they retire. So we need to add to the surpluses 
later on, not take away from them.
  Mr. President, I am certain that the amendment I am offering will be 
supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Poll after poll has 
indicated opposition to the cuts in Social Security benefits by the 
elderly and by those now working.
  So, Mr. President, it is a modest amendment. It is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. I think we ought to express ourselves on this bill. 
Even though it does not have anything to do, I know, with unfunded 
mandates, I think we have to express ourselves as soon as possible, 
especially now in the middle of winter when so many elderly people are 
concerned about Social Security cuts. And I think, if I am not 
mistaken, that we will be on the balanced budget amendment right after 
this bill is disposed of.
  So, Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 190.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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:

  On page 50, add after line 6 the following new title:

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING BALANCED BUDGET 
                   AMENDMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) social security is a contributory insurance program 
     supported by deductions from workers' earnings and matching 
     contributions from their employers that are deposited into an 
     independent trust fund;
       (2) over 42,000,000 Americans, including over 3,000,000 
     children and 5,000,000 disabled workers and their families, 
     receive social security benefits;
       (3) social security is the only pension program for 60 
     percent of older Americans;
       (4) almost 60 percent of older beneficiaries depend on 
     social security for at least half of their income and 25 
     percent depend on social security for at least 90 percent of 
     their income;
       (5) without social security an additional 15,000,000 
     Americans, mostly senior citizens, would be thrown into 
     poverty;
       (6) 138,000,000 American workers participate in the social 
     security system and are insured in case of retirement, 
     disability, or death;
       (7) social security is a contract between workers and the 
     Government;
       (8) social security is a self-financed program that is not 
     contributing to the current Federal budget deficit; in fact, 
     the social security trust funds currently have over 
     $400,000,000,000 in reserves and that surplus will increase 
     during fiscal year 1995 alone by an additional 
     $70,000,000,000;
       (9) this surplus is necessary to pay monthly benefits for 
     current and future beneficiaries;
       (10) recognizing that social security is a self-financed 
     program, Congress took social security completely ``off-
     budget'' in 1990; however, unless social security is 
     explicitly excluded from a balanced budget amendment to the 
     United States Constitution, such an amendment would, in 
     effect, put the program back into the Federal budget by 
     referring to all spending and receipts in calculating whether 
     the budget is in balance;
       (11) raiding the social security trust funds to reduce the 
     Federal budget deficit would be devastating to both current 
     and future beneficiaries and would further undermine 
     confidence in the system among younger workers;
       (12) the American people in poll after poll have 
     overwhelmingly rejected cutting social security benefits to 
     reduce the Federal deficit and balance the budget; and
       (13) social security beneficiaries throughout the nation 
     are gravely concerned that their financial security is in 
     jeopardy because of possible social security cuts and deserve 
     to be reassured that their benefits will not be subject to 
     cuts that would likely be required should social security not 
     be excluded from a balanced budget amendment to the United 
     States Constitution.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that any joint resolution providing for a balanced budget 
     amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 
     Senate shall specifically exclude social security from the 
     calculations used to determine if the Federal budget is in 
     balance.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask the manager, did the Senator 
intend to proceed with additional amendments now or prefer that we 
wait?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in discussing with the Senator from 
Iowa, we do not have a problem laying aside the pending amendment while 
we get additional information, and would note that the Senator from 
Iowa has, I believe, a unanimous-consent request. I believe it would be 
appropriate to lay the pending amendment aside and proceed with the 
amendment of the Senator.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if it is in order, I ask unanimous 
consent that I set aside the pending amendment and any pending 
unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 191

(Purpose: To provide that certain legislation shall always be in order)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
   [[Page S1338]] The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 191.

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

       On page 25, add after line 25 the following new section:
       ``(4) Determination by reporting committee of applicability 
     to pending legislation.--Notwithstanding any provision of 
     paragraph (1)(B), it shall always be in order to consider a 
     bill, resolution, or conference report if such report 
     includes a determination by the reporting committee that the 
     pending measure is needed to serve a compelling national 
     interest that furthers the public health, safety, or welfare.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment that I have offered today 
will allow a reporting committee--that is, any of the authorizing 
committees--to ensure that a measure that committee determines is 
necessary to serve a compelling national interest be given full 
consideration by the Senate.
  Mr. President, last week I raised several issues with my colleagues 
from Idaho and Ohio regarding Senate bill 1. Specifically, we discussed 
the fact that under S. 1, it would be out of order to proceed on any 
legislation that imposes a cost of more than $50 million on other 
levels of government unless the Federal Government is willing to pay 
the full costs incurred by those other levels of government. I realize 
a point of order would have to be raised by a Senator for the 
legislation not to be considered. Nevertheless, if the point of order 
is raised, then consideration of such a bill shall not be in order as I 
read the unfunded mandates legislation we are considering today.
  Mr. President, I believe that we go too far when we say that the 
Senate should not consider a measure, regardless of its importance, 
unless the Federal Government can cover all public costs associated 
with that measure. We can all think of cases of a compelling national 
interest with which we should proceed even if the Federal Government 
does not intend to cover all the costs.
  Some examples are control of nuclear waste, minimum wage laws, and 
the control of terrorism. These are clear examples that I think most 
Senators will agree with. In those cases, it is appropriate to provide 
a mechanism through which a committee reporting a measure, armed with 
the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate required by this 
legislation, can make a determination that it should be in order for 
the full Senate to consider the matter, and that no point of order 
should prevent that consideration.
  Our Federal system functions best when there is a partnership of 
effort by local, State, and Federal Government, and tribal government, 
in some cases. Many of the most successful programs that we have in 
this country have been pursued as a result of just such a partnership, 
constructed by the Federal Government. Examples are the Interstate 
Highway System, Federal housing assistance, and the unemployment 
insurance system.
  If partnerships involving cost sharing by the different levels of 
government are to occur, then under our Constitution, the Federal 
Government is set up as the final arbiter of the terms of those 
partnerships. It makes no sense for us to abdicate that responsibility 
entirely. Clearly, in any activity we choose to pursue in partnership 
with the States, local government, or Indian Tribes, the Federal 
Government should do its best to cover the costs that relate to the 
benefits that the country as a whole is to receive. Surely, the Federal 
Government should do a better job than it has in many cases in being 
sensitive to other governmental entities about costs they may occur.
  But we should not, in my opinion, make it out of order to consider 
any and all legislation that requires action by other levels of 
government unless the Federal Government agrees to pay the full cost of 
that action. Partnerships between the Federal, State, and local 
governments and Indian tribes will be needed in the future, and it may 
be appropriate in some cases for some of the costs of those 
partnerships to be borne by others than the Federal Government.
  Under my amendment, the cost estimates would still be done, and no 
one in the Senate would enter into the debate ignorant of the full 
costs. Indeed, if the full Senate felt that the cost should be paid for 
entirely by the Federal Government, an amendment to this effect could 
be offered. If the funding was not provided for all the costs, an 
estimate of which would be required under the amendment, the full 
Senate could vote the measure down after actual debate. A measure that 
a committee determined to be needed to serve a compelling national 
interest, however, would be assured a debate on its merits if it 
reached the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. President, this seems to be an imminently reasonable adjustment 
to the procedures outlined in S. 1. I urge the managers to support the 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to agree to its adoption. I may speak 
again in reference to this prior to final vote on the issue. I did want 
to put my colleagues on notice as to the import of this amendment.
  I have two other amendments, Mr. President, that I have reserved the 
right to offer, and I intend to offer those later this afternoon or 
early tomorrow. I do not have those with me at this moment.
  I yield the floor. 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.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. In response, Mr. President, to the Senator from New 
Mexico, I think it is necessary to point out that if at any point 
during this process, there truly is a compelling argument, that the 
committee, the chairman of that committee, may come to the floor and 
seek a waiver of this process of S. 1, and need not go through the 
remaining steps of that process.
  But the idea, as I understand the proposed amendment, is to say that 
the committee itself could exercise the jurisdiction of the full 
Senate, which I do not think is appropriate and is really a real short 
circuit of what we are trying to do here with this process.
  Earlier today we heard from the Senator from Nevada and the Senator 
from North Dakota on another issue, but they were saying that with this 
particular Federal mandate that has been put into place a year or two 
ago that there may be merit to this unfunded Federal mandate, but it 
would have been so nice to have known all the implications and the 
costs before this unfunded Federal mandate was implemented. What they 
were describing is how nice it would have been to have S. 1 in place 
before that particular mandate had been imposed.
  So, again, I think that S. 1 provides the process and rather than 
allowing the committee to have that sort of jurisdiction to say that 
because there is a compelling interest here we need not comply is not 
the route that we should go. If that is the case, if there truly is a 
compelling reason, then they can seek that waiver immediately.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I just respond to the concern that 
the Senator from Idaho has raised.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, by my amendment by its language I am not 
exempting any piece of legislation from the requirements of cost 
estimates or reports from the CBO. What I am saying is that once those 
cost estimates and reports are obtained by the appropriate committee, 
if that committee determines that there is compelling national interest 
that needs to be considered here, then it has the right to say that in 
its report and to have the legislation considered on its merits on the 
Senate floor. And it does not have to get past any procedural hurdle 
that this proposed legislation would impose in terms of language that 
says it is out of order to consider the proposed bill.
  In my opinion, it is not wise for us to be writing legislation 
stating it is out of order to consider any and all Federal legislation 
where the Federal Government fails to pay the full cost of implementing 
the legislation. There are too many examples in our Nation's history 
where it has been appropriate for the 
[[Page S1339]] Federal Government to proceed with legislation of that 
type and where there has been a well-designed partnership between the 
Federal Government, State government, and local government to 
accomplish a recognized national purpose.
  I am trying to make it clear that where there is such a circumstance 
in the view of an authorizing committee, then that authorizing 
committee should have the right to have its legislation, its reported 
legislation, considered on its merits without having to overcome 
procedural points of order to do so.
  That is the intent of my legislation. It does not exempt any reported 
legislation from the requirements of reports or cost estimates by the 
CBO. I do believe those are appropriate, and clearly the failure to 
have those in some cases has worked a hardship on local governments, on 
State governments, on Indian tribes.
  I wanted to clarify what the import of my legislation is. And with 
that clarification, I hope that the Senator from Idaho, and all other 
Senators, can support it.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President, and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  

                          ____________________