[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1417-S1426]
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.


                      Amendments Nos. 215 and 216

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, under the previous unanimous consent 
request, all amendments have to be submitted before 3 o'clock, so I ask 
unanimous consent that I might send two amendments to the desk for 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no objections, the Senate may set 
aside the pending amendment. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes amendments 
     numbered 215 and 216.

  Madam 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. 215

  (Purpose: To require that each conference report that includes any 
  Federal mandate, be accompanied by a report by the Director of the 
    Congressional Budget Office on the cost of the Federal mandate)
       On page, 21, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       ``(2) Amended bills and joint resolutions: conference 
     reports.--If a bill or joint resolution is passed in an 
     amended form (including if passed by one House as an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute for the text of a 
     bill or joint resolution from the other House) or is reported 
     by a committee of conference in amended form, the committee 
     of conference shall ensure, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, that the Director shall prepare a statement as 
     provided in paragraph (1) or a supplemental statement for the 
     bill or joint resolution in that amended form.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 216

(Purpose: To require an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members 
to waive the requirement of a published statement on the direct cost of 
                           Federal mandates)

       On page 26, line 6, redesignate subsection (b) as 
     subsection (c), and insert the following:
       (b) Waiver.--Subsections (c) and (d) of section 904 of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 are 
     amended by inserting ``408(c),'' after ``313,''.

  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, let me just make a couple of points. 
First of all, one of these amendments is technical, one is substantive. 
One is trying to strengthen the mandate bill. Under the mandate bill we 
are now considering, if someone wanted to impose an unfunded mandate on 
local government, county government, or State government, there would 
have to be an estimate of the amount of cost. And if that cost exceeds 
$50 million, the unfunded mandate would be subject to a point of order 
and a 50-vote margin--50 votes plus 1, a majority, would have to be 
achieved in order to waive that point of order.
  I have gone back and looked at what 50-vote points of order have done 
under the Budget Act. In fact, you have to go back to 1988 to actually 
find 50-vote points of order that anyone raises. In 1987-88 we had five 
50-vote points of order raised. This was under the Budget Act, for 
busting the budget.
  Four of them were waived, and no one has raised one since that time, 
the reason being if you only have to get 50 votes to waive the point of 
order, since it takes 50 votes to pass the bill, almost anything that 
is going to pass will get the votes to waive the Budget Act. That is 
why we went to a 60-vote point of order, to make the point of order 
have some meaning and substance.
  I have offered an amendment that would change the bill in one 
fundamental respect, and that is it would require 60 votes to waive the 
point of order in the Senate to allow us to impose an unfunded mandate 
on local government.
  Madam President, I want to make one observation about this bill. I 
understand obstruction. I have engaged in it myself. It is an important 
part of the American system and, while those who are being obstructed 
are unhappy about it, in fact it is the guaranteed right of those who 
serve in the Senate to obstruct.
  I would like to note one observation that I think is relevant to this 
process. I engaged in obstructing the passage of the President's health 
care bill. For 7 months I was engaged, with other Members of the 
Senate, in relentlessly trying to prevent the President's health care 
bill from being passed. I would say, however, that I had no qualms 
about standing up and saying I oppose the President's health care bill 
and it is going to pass over my cold, dead political body, which 
fortunately, such as it is, is alive today. The President's health care 
bill is deader than Elvis. And unlike Elvis, it would not be welcomed 
if it came back.
  But I would note it is very strange to me that, though we are in our 
second week of deliberation on this bill, we have been unable to get 
cloture to go on and pass the bill when we have 63 cosponsors. My 
question is this: If so many people are for this bill, why do we have 
so much trouble in passing it?
  So I think obstructing is an important part of the process. I think 
it allows us to analyze, to discuss, to reason. And I think ultimately 
if you have a determined minority that is opposed to a bill, that you 
ought to be able to show voter strength in the Senate in order to 
override that minority. But I do continue to be puzzled by the fact 
that so many people say they are for this bill, and yet we cannot seem 
to get on with the job of passing it.
  I think that is an important point to make and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 217

  (Purpose: To exclude the application of a Federal intergovernmental 
 mandate point of order to employer-related legislation, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment for the 
purpose of qualifying under the original unanimous-consent order. I 
have a spot on the list. I ask the number only be stated at this time 
and that it lie at the desk for call-up during the debate later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will state the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 217.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 5, beginning with line 22, strike out all through 
     line 2 on page 6 and insert in lieu thereof:
       ``(I) a condition of Federal assistance;
       ``(II) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
     Federal program, except as provided in subparagraph (B)); or
       ``(III) for purposes of section 408 (c)(1)(B) and (d) only, 
     a duty that establishes or enforces any statutory right of 
     employees in both the public and private sectors with respect 
     to their employment; or
                     Amendment No. 213, As Modified

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I now have three amendments that have been 
entered in accordance with the order that was previously entered. One 
of those amendments I wish to modify.
  I ask unanimous consent I may be permitted to modify amendment No. 
213.
   [[Page S1418]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the modification 
not be read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 213), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 23, strike line 18 through line 6 on page 25 and 
     insert the following:
       ``(III)(aa) provides that if for any fiscal year the 
     responsible Federal agency determines that there are 
     insufficient appropriations to provide for the estimated 
     direct costs of the mandate, the Federal agency shall (not 
     later than 30 days after the beginning of the fiscal year) 
     notify the appropriate authorizing committees of Congress of 
     the determination and submit legislative recommendations for 
     either implementing a less costly mandate or making the 
     mandate ineffective for the fiscal year;
       ``(bb) provides expedited procedures for the consideration 
     of the legislative recommendations referred to in item (aa) 
     by Congress not later than 30 days after the recommendations 
     are submitted to Congress; and
       ``(cc) provides that the mandate shall cease to be 
     effective 60 days after the date the legislative 
     recommendations of the responsible Federal agency are 
     submitted to Congress under item (aa) unless Congress has 
     completed action on the recommendations during the 60 day 
     period.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry, is it necessary to 
ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to 
send up an amendment under the UC?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside temporarily so it would be in order for me to 
offer two amendments under the unanimous-consent agreement that is now 
in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 218

              (Purpose: To propose a substitute amendment)

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam 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 Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 218.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 219

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I send another amendment to the desk 
pursuant to the pending unanimous-consent agreement, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 219.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam 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 18, line 25, insert before ``and'' the following: 
     ``but no more than ten years beyond the effective date of the 
     mandate''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside so I may offer some amendments under our 
unanimous-consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 220

   (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the appropriate 
 committees should review the implementation of the act, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I send to the desk an amendment dealing 
with a sense of the Senate regarding a review of this process, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 220.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam 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 13, insert between lines 13 and 14 the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 6. REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that before the adjournment 
     of the 106th Congress, the appropriate committees of the 
     Senate should review the implementation of the provisions of 
     this Act with respect to the conduct of the business of the 
     Senate and report thereon to the Senate.


                           amendment no. 221

         (Purpose: To limit the restriction on judicial review)

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I send a second 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 Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself and Mr. 
     Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 221.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam 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:

       Strike title IV of the bill and insert the following:

                       TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW

     SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--Any statement or report prepared under 
     title I or III of this Act, and any compliance or 
     noncompliance with the provisions of title I or III of this 
     Act, and any determination concerning the applicability of 
     the provisions of title I or III of this Act shall not be 
     subject to judicial review.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--No provision of title I or III 
     of this Act or amendment made by title I or III of this Act 
     shall be construed to create any right or benefit, 
     substantive or procedural, enforceable by any person in any 
     administrative or judicial action. No ruling or determination 
     made under the provisions of title I or III of this Act or 
     amendments made by title I or III of this Act shall be 
     considered by any court in determining the intent of 
     Congress.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the first amendment deals with a sense-
of-the-Senate, suggesting that by the 106th Congress, this legislation 
be reviewed. I think it is important that, while we are not able to 
bind future Congresses, and while I think it would be a mistake to set 
an automatic sunset on this legislation, it is important that future 
Congresses review that. My hope is that the body will want to go on 
record as urging future Congresses to provide the right kind of 
overview that will enable us to perfect the legislation.
  The second amendment is an important one. I recognize, as I think 
most Senators do, it is important not to have a judicial review of 
things that are internal within the Congress. But it is also important, 
I think, to provide that outside regulatory agencies that are assigned 
responsibilities under this act be subject to judicial review just as 
they are in all the other things they do.
  So what my amendment does is make it clear that title I and title III 
are not subject to judicial review, in that the regulatory agencies 
under title II are treated, in this act, the same way as they are in 
all other acts that apply.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
                    [[Page S1419]] Amendment No. 222

  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending 
amendment will be set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 222.

  Mr. ROTH. Madam 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 33, strike all on lines 10 through 12, and insert 
     the following:
       This title shall take effect on January 1, 1996, and shall 
     apply to--
       (1) bills and joint resolutions reported, and to amendments 
     and motions offered, on and after such date, and
       (2) conference reports on such legislation.

  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay 
this amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:15 
today there be 30 minutes for debate on the Grassley amendment No. 207 
to be equally divided in the usual form, and that no second-degree 
amendments be in order to the Grassley amendment No. 207, and that the 
vote occur on the amendment following the stacked votes already ordered 
to begin at 4 p.m..
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
consent agreement governing the Hollings amendment No. 182 be postponed 
to now occur immediately following the stacked rollcall votes at 4 
p.m..
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
3:15 time for the debate and vote on the Grassley amendment be 
postponed, to occur at a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, before we start five rollcall votes I 
thought I would just review for those who have been involved in this, 
and others who may have an interest, just sort of what has happened.
  First of all, we started on this bill on Thursday, January 12, at 
10:30 a.m.. We have had 10 full days of debate on this one. I do not 
want anybody suggesting this bill has been rushed. It should have been 
passed probably in a couple of days. We have had 21 rollcall votes 
taken on this bill. Of those, 5 were unanimous. Of those 21 votes, 9 
were taken on committee amendments that had been adopted unanimously in 
committee.
  We have had just about 41 hours and 48 minutes on the bill. 
Colleagues on the other side have used 26 hours and 41 minutes. On this 
side, we have used 15 hours and 7 minutes. We reached an agreement last 
Thursday to limit the number of first-degree amendments to 62 
amendments. But then 50 amendments have been offered. I am not certain 
we gained anything. We probably could have disposed of 12 on Friday. So 
we really did not gain anything with the consent agreement.
  So, of the 50 amendments which are pending, 37 amendments were 
offered by our colleagues on the other side and 13 were offered by my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle. We have accepted three by a voice 
vote, which means that after 10 days of debate and entering into these 
unanimous consent agreements, we still have 47 amendments left.
  I just say to my colleagues that we hope to finish action on this 
bill this week. So I can say definitely tomorrow night will be a late, 
late night. Thursday night will be a late, late night, and I assume 
Friday night will be a late, late night because at the rate we are 
going we have only disposed of--I do not know how many amendments in 
the last 10 days--not very many. We have had 21 rollcall votes. So that 
is an average of two rollcall votes a day.
  We obviously have the right to file cloture, in effect, because there 
is no time agreement on any of these amendments. Even though there are 
47 amendments left, there is no time agreement on any of the 
amendments. They could take 1 hour apiece or 1 day apiece. So it may be 
necessary to file cloture. If not, it may be necessary to start tabling 
the amendments because we need to complete action on this bill.
  I do not believe anybody can say that this bill has been rushed. I 
have read statements where people say it has been rushed, that they are 
not going to be rushed and we are going to take our time. And I do not 
quarrel with that, except it would be a stretch by anyone to suggest we 
have not taken enough time on this bill. The bill has broad support on 
both sides of the aisle.
  I hope that the President tonight in his State of the Union Message 
will just urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to speed up 
action on this bill. He is for it and indicates he is for it. There 
will be no action on Mexico until this bill is disposed of, and maybe--
we have wasted so much time--maybe not until a balanced budget 
amendment is disposed of. We will have to make that decision later. 
This has been a priority, and we would like to dispose of it as quickly 
as possible. That would mean no later than the end of this week.
  I want to thank both managers of the bill. I know that they have been 
working diligently. But it seems to me we have about reached the place 
where we should agree on some of the key amendments, offer the 
amendments, have the debate, and then have the vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that all the votes except the first vote be 
limited to 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. So the first vote will be a 20-minute rollcall vote, 15 
plus 5; the remaining votes will be 10 minutes, plus 5. We hope we can 
complete many amendments in 10 minutes. But the first will be 20 
minutes, then the others will be 15-minute rollcall votes.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 178

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question recurs 
on the motion to table amendment No. 178, offered by the Senator from 
North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 34, as follows:
               [[Page S1420]] [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--34

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Heflin
     Kennedy
     Simpson
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 178) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 179

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment and 
commend my colleague from North Dakota for his work on this issue.
  We are still in the first weeks of the 104th Congress, and already it 
appears that some Members of the Republican leadership are going back 
on their promises to our seniors and our middle-class taxpayers. They 
promised not to touch Social Security and they promised to cut taxes. 
Now they are strongarming bureaucrats to approve a technical change 
that would reduce Social Security benefits to millions of seniors and 
raise taxes to millions of others.
  Mr. President, may I suggest that this is no way to fulfill the 
meaning of the words that formed the backdrop at the Republican 
National Committee meeting this weekend? The banner read: 
``Republicans: Keeping Our Promises: Building Your Trust.''
  I support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution because I believe fine 
tuning our calculation of inflation is too important an issue to be 
exploited or politicized. Any adjustments to the consumer price index 
must be left--not to the whims of political leaders--but to the 
thoughtful analysis of our Nation's leading economists.
  Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others have raised a 
concern that the consumer price index may overestimate inflation by 
inaccurately measuring consumer spending habits. No consensus has 
emerged, however, on how to remedy this problem. None.
  The calculation of the CPI has significant policy ramifications, 
principally for senior citizens who rely on Social Security cost-of-
living adjustments.
  Before we cut their benefits, we owe our Nation's seniors the benefit 
of consulting with the experts.
  Speaker Gingrich disagrees. He has threatened to cut off funding for 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics if the agency ``can't get it right'' 
within 30 days. What does ``getting it right'' mean? If the agency does 
not adjust the CPI calculations to fit the Speaker's political ends, 
are economists going to lose their jobs?
  One thing is for sure--browbeating bureaucrats will not create a more 
reasoned analysis of this issue.
  There is simply too much at stake for Congress to rush to judgment on 
this matter without the thoughtful review and recommendations of our 
economic experts.


                         a pattern of gimmicks

  I am concerned that this latest flap over the CPI is part of a 
disturbing pattern. Some of my Republican colleagues are seizing upon 
any gimmick they can to justify their tax cuts for the wealthy. It does 
not seem to matter who they run over in the process.
  Dynamic scoring--otherwise known as dynamic dreaming--was the last 
flavor of the week. CPI changes are the newest flavor.
  A balanced budget amendment will be the next. The Republicans' 
attempt to politicize the CPI shows that even with a constitutional 
amendment, Congress will use gimmicks to pass a budget that balances on 
paper, but bounces in the real world.
  We have seen this before.
  For 12 years, Ronald Reagan and George Bush advocated a balanced 
budget amendment while submitting budgets with rosy economic scenarios, 
inaccurate assumptions, and magic asterisks in the place of specified 
spending cuts.
  These actions have left a legacy of large deficits and a quadrupling 
of the national debt. Today every American man, women, and child owes 
almost $13,500 on the publicly held debt. In inflation-adjusted terms, 
that's about 2\1/2\ times what they owed in 1980.
  Time after time we have seen gimmicks used to support economic 
theories for political reasons. We are in serious jeopardy of returning 
to these dangerous tricks.
  We all know--and experience has taught--who bears the greatest cost 
of this gimmickry--the middle-class. At the end of the day, it's 
middle-class Americans who are called upon to clean up the effects of 
mistaken economic theories.
  If we misjudge this theory, and err in recalculating the CPI--it's 
middle-class Americans and vulnerable seniors who will lose the most.
  I urge my colleagues to reject these quick fixes and gimmicks and act 
cautiously and conservatively. The American public deserves no less.
                       Vote on Amendment No. 179

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 179 of the Senator from North Dakota. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BRADLEY (after having voted in the negative). On this vote, I 
have a pair with Senator Simpson, of Wyoming. I have voted ``no.'' 
Senator Simpson would have voted ``aye.'' I withdraw my vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  On this vote, the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] is paired 
with the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson].
  If present and voting, the Senator from Wyoming would vote ``yea'' 
and the Senator from New Jersey would vote ``nay.''
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     [[Page S1421]] Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

       PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS PREVIOUSLY RECORDED--1

                                     

       
     Bradley, against
      

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Heflin
     Kennedy
     Simpson
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 179) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 191

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 191 offered by the 
Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is 
absent because of death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

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

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Heflin
     Kennedy
     Simpson
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 191) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment No. 192 
offered by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman]. On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

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

                                NAYS--40

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

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


                           Amendment No. 182

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what is the next order of business before 
the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 182, offered by the Senator from 
South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] with 30 minutes, equally divided.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President it is my hope that in this amendment we 
can sort of burst the bubble of false hope that permeates the 
Government in Washington with so-called contracts. All around town we 
seem to hear ``The Government is the problem; let's get rid of the 
Government.''
 Unfortunately, both sides participate in this charade. We will be 
fighting all year to bring reality into the picture. Specifically, let 
me refer, to an amendment that I introduced on the Senate floor in 
1990, an amendment that is now the solemn law of the land. It says:

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law receipts, 
     disbursements and Federal aid, survivors' insurance trust 
     fund, and the Federal disability insurance trust fund shall 
     not be counted as new budget authority outlays, receipts, 
     deficit, surplus, for the purpose of the budget of the U.S. 
     Government as submitted by the President or the congressional 
     budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act.

  In reality, the administration and the other side continue to use 
surplus funds when they refer to the size of the deficit. When Vaclav 
Havel was inaugurated as President of Czechoslovakia, he said:

       For 40 years we have been lied to, and for 40 years we have 
     grown sicker because we have been saying one thing and 
     believing another. I assume that you did not elect me 
     President to continue this 40 years of lying. We have to deal 
     with our problems. Nobody else can solve our problems but us.

  That goes double for the problems that confront this Government at 
this hour.
  We have, as the President speaks tonight, some 10 million Americans 
laying on the streets homeless, 12 million children hungry, and 40 
million in poverty.
  Mr. President, we need to be candid with the American people. All 
this resolution asks Congress to do, is to tell the American people up 
front the truth about our fiscal situation. Specifically, the deficit 
right now is not $176 billion; 
[[Page S1422]] it is $283 billion. We can look at the $253 billion that 
we spend on domestic discretionary programs against the $283 billion 
projected deficit and readily see that we could eliminate Government 
and still be in the red. My point is that in addition to spending cuts 
we will need to increase revenues.
  I ask unanimous consent at this point to include in the Record a 
chart outlining one possible path to balancing the budget along with a 
list of approximately $37 billion in nondefense discretionary spending 
cuts.
  There being no objection, the table is ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

           Hollings Releases Realities on Truth in Budgeting

       Reality No. 1: $1.2 trillion in spending cuts is necessary.
       Reality No. 2: There aren't enough savings in entitlements. 
     Have welfare reform, but a jobs program will cost; savings 
     are questionable; health reform can and should save some, but 
     slowing growth from 10 to 5 percent doesn't offer enough 
     savings; social security won't be cut and will be off-budget 
     again.
       Reality No. 3: We should hold the line on the budget on 
     Defense; that would be no savings.
       Reality No. 4: Savings must come from freezes and cuts in 
     domestic discretionary spending but that's not enough to stop 
     hemorrhaging interest costs.
       Reality No. 5: Taxes are 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 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--Figures are in billions. Figures don't include the billions necessary for a middle-class tax cut.         


------------------------------------------------------------------------
       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  
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 title 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 USTTA.....................................     0.012     0.16 
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 International 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 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.........................................    36.941    58.402
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the path that I have outlined would 
include $406 billion in spending cuts over a 4-year period. In reality, 
I doubt that the Congress could cut $406 billion. I doubt that you 
could cut $37 billion in the first year to put us on schedule. But as 
my list of cuts shows, even if that were done, we would have to make 
additional cuts in the second year, and the third year, and so on. 
Moreover, after all these cuts we will still need a 5 percent value-
added tax to bring us into the black by 1999. But wait, there's more. 
Having gotten into the black, we will still be spending $368 billion in 
interest costs on the gross debt. In short, we will be on automatic 
pilot for increased spending of $1 billion a day. The only way I know 
to get off of this binge is to start talking honestly about the budget.
  Some of the elected officials in this town act like they are not part 
of the Government. It is like going to the Super Bowl and watching the 
Forty-Niners and the Chargers run into the stands hollering, ``We want 
a touchdown. We want a touchdown.'' But to do that, they've got to get 
out of the bleachers and onto the field. Let us get down on the field 
and balance the budget.
  Mr. President, David Stockman, the Republican Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget, said 10 years ago:

       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 of 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 a mindless stream of anti-tax venom while pretending 
     that economic growth and spending cuts alone could cure the 
     deficit. That ought to be obvious now that we cannot grow our 
     way out of it.

  That is what we are getting here, 1995. It is time to stop this 
charade today. I retain the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does Senator Hollings have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes and 18 seconds remaining. The 
Senator from New Mexico has a full 15.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do you want to proceed with some of that, Senator? Do 
you want him to go now?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Go right ahead and then I will yield to Senator Dodd.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I have 15 minutes and would like to yield up to 5 
minutes for Senator Simon from Illinois. I would use the balance.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank you.
  I am going to oppose this amendment. I have great respect for 
Senator 
[[Page S1423]] Hollings. Frankly, if we had more Fritz Hollings in the 
U.S. Senate we would not need a balanced budget amendment. Fritz 
Hollings has shown more courage in the Budget Committee--and I have 
served there along with Senator Dodd and others--in talking about 
revenue, talking about cuts, talking about the needs of our country and 
that is essential.
  I think there will be a lot of votes on this side supporting it in 
part because there is some resentment to the Contract With America and 
it is pie-in-the-sky we can cut taxes and spend more on defense, and it 
is just unrealistic.
  I, however, oppose it for this reason, and that is, if it were 
popular to balance the budget, we would have done it a long time ago, 
the Fritz Hollings votes in the Budget Committee would have passed. The 
reality is we need a straitjacket to force us to do the right thing, 
and that is why it is essential for the country that we have a balanced 
budget.
  The principle has to be established, and once we establish the 
principle, then we can argue among ourselves how to go about it. But we 
have not established the principle. I will just give you one quick 
illustration.
  Back about 3 years ago, I introduced a bill for long-term care with a 
\1/2\ percent increase in Social Security to pay for it. Two of my 
colleagues in the Senate, one of whom is still serving here now, came 
to me and said they thought it was a great bill, they would like to 
cosponsor it if I would just drop the \1/2\ percent tax to pay for it. 
We can do that now. We can spend money, not pay any attention to 
whether it balances or not.
  The reality is, if we want long-term care, we have to have the 
revenue. Senator Hollings is correct--and I know I differ with some of 
my colleagues on the other side on this--he is absolutely correct when 
he says this is going to have to be a combination of spending cuts and 
revenue increases. I do not think there is any way to do it without 
that. And I do not favor just putting this thing off. If this passes, 
and I believe it will, if this passes in a few weeks, then I want to 
move on that glidepath right away, and I will join Senator Hollings and 
any other Senator. We cannot wait until the States act; we have to move 
immediately.
  But, frankly, we do not need to spell out how many toes we are going 
to step on when we have a balanced budget amendment. It is not going to 
be easy. It is going to be tough, but not to do it is going to be 
infinitely tougher on the future of this country.
  So I, with great respect for the sponsor, am going to be voting on 
the other side on this particular motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Illinois for his statement, but I also thank him for his strong 
support for a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. It is 
obvious some Democrats support this. It is obvious the President of the 
United States does not. Very few Republicans do not support it.
  Having said that, the issue tonight is not whether we favor a 
constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, but rather after all 
these years of saying in order to balance the budget you need a 
constitutional amendment to force a total change of attitude on the 
part of the American people, the Congress, Democrats, Republicans and, 
yes, Presidents, that is why we need the amendment, so nobody in the 
position of leadership can any longer be for an unbalanced budget. The 
Presidents in the future are going to have to tell us how they get 
there.
  I can guarantee you that when this constitutional amendment passes 
the U.S. Senate and House, the implementing legislation that will be 
part of it will not permit the executive branch of Government to say, 
``I don't want to do it, I don't like it.''
  Do you not think the first sentence in that implementing language 
will say: ``The next budget that the President of the United States 
sends to us, be he Democrat or Republican, will be in balance?'' We do 
not have that luxury today.
  We have my very good friend and distinguished budgeteer and one who 
has proposed many healthy things to get the deficit under control, 
Senator Hollings--and I thank him for his complimentary statements this 
morning--we have him suggesting that somebody, presumably the 
Republicans, ought to produce the details of a balanced budget before 
the sovereign States tell us we have to have it. Or it is some kind of 
gimmick, somebody says, if we do not.
  Why is that? We are all suggesting and the American people have 
finally agreed that until the substantive, relevant, basic, underlying 
law of the land is changed, we will not get to a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, let me tell you, I am not one who 14, 15 years ago was 
for a constitutional amendment. In fact, you might find something in 
the Record of this institution where I was not. But I have come full 
circle, and the very reason that I have is the reason we cannot do what 
Senator Hollings is recommending in this amendment, because we have 
never been able to produce a balanced budget, and until we have a 
constitutional amendment, we will not. When we do, I say to Senator 
Simon, everything will change.
  Now, you say to me, ``What are you going to tax? What are you going 
to cut?'' Everything will be changed because the entire attitude of 
Congressmen will constantly be saying, ``How do we get a balanced 
budget?'' The entire demeanor of the fiscal policy and U.S. Congress is 
to solve every problem with a $20 million, $30 million or $50 million 
program, or a new entitlement.
  I say to the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, we pass 
in reconciliation bills--not the Senator, not me--but in reconciliation 
bills in which we are supposed to save money, we spent $150 billion 
because somebody found a loophole. They cut in the first year and then 
they pass 12 new programs in the second, third, fourth, and fifth. That 
happens to be how social services block grants, for those who are 
wondering, how the price went up. We never passed a free-standing bill. 
Believe it or not, we increased that spending by putting it in a 
budget-cutting bill.
  We cannot stop all of that, but we will stop it all when we have a 
constitutional amendment.
  Incidentally, we will not have a President of the United States 
giving a speech tonight on the State of the Union without including in 
it how we are going to get to a balanced budget, or I have sent you a 
balanced budget, or saying to the people of the United States, ``I sent 
it last year and they did not follow it because they still think they 
have 5 more years to play games.''
  We are not going to have that now, I say to my friend from 
Connecticut, the new chairman of the Democratic Party, because this 
President is not obligated to. As a matter of fact, I believe sooner or 
later we ought to vote here and we probably ought to vote that the 
President should submit a balanced budget next year. That might be a 
good way to handle this. Maybe he ought to. He is the primary developer 
of budgets--the executive branch, not Congress, not Republicans because 
they are in the majority by a few votes.
  So I want to close tonight by saying we do not need anybody telling 
us we have to produce a balanced budget in advance of a constitutional 
amendment. I say to the Senator from South Carolina, he is going to be 
there. He is the second ranking on the Budget Committee. I am the 
chairman. He is free to offer any amendments he wants in that 
timeframe, and he knows that.
  I am going to offer plenty, and I am going to offer a budget that 
dramatically reduces the deficit. I welcome every Democrat who is 
pushing this issue. I welcome them to vote for all the cuts we are 
going to propose. That is the first start. That is the downpayment. If 
you are looking for an analogy in a football game, what we are going to 
have in 3 or 4 weeks is the game that just precedes the playoff. The 
Senator from South Carolina referred to the Chargers and San Francisco 
49'ers. We are not at that game yet in the budget resolution this year. 
We are two games before the playoff because we still have to build the 
foundation for getting the deficit down with a big downpayment.
  I say to the American people, just wait, in 4 or 5 weeks we will give 
you that downpayment and we will start that trend line down so that in 
the 
[[Page S1424]] fifth year, the budget will not be going up, it will be 
coming down.
  Now, is this the way to do business? Let me close. I want to quote 
from Laurence Tribe, a liberal constitutional lawyer, on what kind of 
games we are playing with our children when we do not tie our own hands 
with a constitutional amendment. Listen carefully:

       Given the centrality in our revolutionary origins of the 
     precept that there should be no taxation without 
     representation, it seems especially fitting in principle that 
     we seek somehow to tie our own hands so we cannot spend our 
     children's legacy.

  That is why we need the constitutional amendment. It will tie our 
hands. Until then, we can only say to the American people for the first 
time in 40 years, there is a Republican House and a Republican Senate, 
and I do not believe you are going to have to be worried about whether 
we will cut enough. What we have to be worried about is how many 
Democrats will help us as we propose very significant cuts in 
entitlements, in every discretionary program, in all kinds of 
expenditures of the Federal Government and privatization. We welcome 
your help.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand I have 6 minutes left. I 
want to divide it between the distinguished Senator from North Dakota 
and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, unless they can yield 
some time to our distinguished friend from Wisconsin.
  Let me just make a few brief points. One, we are on the unfunded 
mandates bill which argues that the Federal Government should consider 
the costs imposed on State and local governments up front. The Senator 
from New Mexico in his opposition seems to say, ``Do not consider the 
cost up front on the biggest unfunded mandate,'' namely the Federal 
budget.
  Two, I am not so sanguine about the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. I remember the 18th amendment was passed and people kept 
on drinking. I think this crowd in Washington could delay and cook up 
plenty of ways to avoid the discipline of a balanced budget amendment.
  Three, President Bill Clinton has already given us the downpayment by 
offering a plan that will reduce the deficit over $500 billion in 5 
years. It's time now to finish the job.
  I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota and 3 minutes to 
the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from South 
Carolina as well.
  Let me just say that talk is cheap in this body. We have heard a lot 
of examples of this as we talk about a balanced budget. I think perhaps 
the American people deserve to know the gap between Republican rhetoric 
and Republican reality with respect to a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, I brought this chart to show what is required to 
balance the budget over the next 7 years. The blue line shows what is 
needed if we do not do anything to make the problem worse before we 
start solving it--1 trillion 35 billion. That is not million, that is 
not billion. That is 1 trillion--1,000 billion --in cuts that are 
necessary if we do not do anything to make it worse.
  But the Republican Contract With America says the first thing to do 
is cut taxes $364 billion. That makes it a $1.4 trillion problem. And 
then they say spend another $82 billion on defense. That makes it a 
$1.48 trillion hole to fill.
  Mr. President, the Republican credibility gap, as I calculate it, is 
shown by the difference between what is necessary to balance the budget 
over 7 years--nearly $1.5 trillion--and the paltry $277 billion of 
spending cuts they have come up with in their Contract With America. 
They are $1.2 trillion short.
  Mr. President, let me just end with this chart that talks about 
famous gaps. Famous gaps. We have the Grand Canyon. That is a mile 
deep. That is a big gap. But the biggest gap we have in America today 
is the Republican credibility gap. It is $1.2 trillion, the difference 
between what is needed to balance the budget and what they have 
identified by way of cuts. That is one of the most famous gaps in 
America today, the Republican credibility gap. They need to fill it in.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I yield myself 30 seconds?
  I forgot in my remarks to indicate to the Senator from South 
Carolina, he would agree that the famous Stockman quote that he read 
into the Record----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That in that book he excludes Senator Domenici from 
that definition, is that not right?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am sure he did.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, indeed, he did. By definition he did. He said, ``I 
exclude,'' and he gave about three people. I was one of them.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Well, he said Republicans.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am a Republican.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is not leaving the party, is he? Is he 
going to join me?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No. We have been wondering when the Senator is coming 
over here.
  I wish to make one last point and save my time and yield a minute or 
so to the new Senator from Pennsylvania.
  First, Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from North Dakota, 
let us wait around for a couple months and see what the gap is. Let us 
see how many of the Senators on the other side vote to help with that 
gap. That really is not the Republican gap. That is the spending gap. 
And we are going to try to fix it. Instead of it being the Grand 
Canyon, it is going to be some little gap in New Mexico that in a 
couple years we can pole-vault over.
  I also want to tell you, with the big cuts we are talking about, the 
budget this year will spend $1.5 trillion, and the budget when we are 
through making all the cuts will spend $1.950 trillion. So we are 
really not cutting very much. I mean if you look at these trend lines, 
we are still going to be at a $1.950 trillion, which is about $400 
billion more than now, even after all the cuts.
  Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania in just 
a moment. Let us let them finish so the Senator can kind of wrap up.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 3 minutes 
5 seconds.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin and the remaining 2 minutes and 5 seconds to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will see if I can do 22 years in 1 minute.
  First, there were 12 years of Republican Presidents who said they 
were going to provide a balanced budget. Instead, they brought us up to 
the biggest deficit and debt in the history of this country. Then there 
was a 4-year period which we are in the middle of now where a 
Democratic President provided the kind of glidepath and direction that 
the Senator from South Carolina is talking about.
  What happened? The deficit, for the first time since Harry Truman, 
went down for 3 years in a row. Those are the facts. Not a single 
Republican in either House of this institution voted to help us on 
these specifics.
  Now we go to the third stage, a 7-year period when the States will 
get to decide whether or not they want to have a balanced budget 
amendment, as the majority party in both Houses here increases taxes 
for everybody in the country to the tune of hundreds of billions of 
dollars and increases the defense budget and tries to tell you that is 
going to balance the Federal budget.
  The fact is that the President is going to give his speech tonight. 
He is the only President who has provided a true, specific path and 
true progress in the direction of deficit reduction, and no matter how 
much the Republicans say that is not the case, it is a fact.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Wisconsin has 
expired. Who yields time?
   [[Page S1425]] Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I just want to commend again the Senator 
from South Carolina for this proposal. Again, I will emphasize what I 
said the other day. This is a radical idea that the Senator from South 
Carolina is suggesting, the radical idea that we might try to lay out 
for our constituents and taxpayers how we are going to achieve this 
``straitjacket'' as it has been called.
  Frankly, I never thought of the Constitution of the United States as 
becoming a straitjacket, particularly when it comes to the economy of 
the country. But to suggest somehow that this is a dreadful notion to 
try to spell out, not in the details the Senator from New Mexico has 
described, but at least in some broad picture--I will take any numbers 
you can give me. Give me some general idea here so that my elderly, my 
young people, my defense contractors, my businesses will have some 
notion of how we are going to achieve the Holy Grail of a balanced 
budget when they look at the bridges that have to be crossed, the gaps 
that have to be breached. How do you get there? And the fact that we 
are just saying lay that out for us in some detail here for us, and 
again not for us so much as it is for the people we represent, I do not 
think is asking too much.
  Frankly, until we do that, I think this amendment proposal is going 
to be in serious question. I say to my friend from Illinois, the 
Constitution should never be a straitjacket. That is not what the 
Founding Fathers had in mind. They specifically left out economic 
policy because they knew that future generations would have to confront 
problems that they could not imagine.
  And so I hope that before we decide to get to this balanced budget 
debate, our friends on the other side will lay out at least in some 
detail for us where we are going to go with that, and again not to fall 
prey to the idea suggested by the distinguished majority leader of the 
other body that we cannot do this because, if we do, the ``knees will 
buckle'' of Members of Congress.
  Well, as I said the other day, it is not the Members of Congress 
whose knees I worry about buckling; it is those out there who look to 
us to see to it that we do a job that makes sense, is rational and 
thoughtful. Asking for some details on this proposal I do not think is 
radical, and it certainly ought to be done if we are going to succeed 
with this proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Connecticut has 
expired. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the junior 
Senator from Pennsylvania and 30 seconds for wrap-up to Senator Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I wanted to pick up on the analysis of this amendment by my 
distinguished colleague from South Carolina, relating it to a football 
game, a Super Bowl, because I thought it was a keen analogy. I am not 
too sure he got it quite right.
  What he suggested is that members of the football team be up in the 
stands rooting for different ideas instead of being on the field 
fighting it out and putting those cuts into place.
  Let me tell you what the constitutional amendment is to balance the 
budget. It is the clock. You see, the game will not start unless the 
clock starts, and that makes the teams get on the field. It makes them 
get on the field and start fighting it out. Otherwise, they would spend 
all their time sitting in the stands enjoying life, running around with 
the cheerleaders. They are going to be on the field now because the 
clock starts; the game has begun.
  Now, the Senator from Connecticut said, well, we need the game plan. 
I know George Seifert would love to have Bobby Ross's game plan, and I 
know Bobby Ross would like to have Mr. Seifert's, but they are not 
going to give it to each other.
  You see, that is what the game is all about and it has to be played. 
But you have to start the clock. That is what the balanced budget 
amendment does, it starts the clock. It gets us on the field and makes 
us perform before the people of the United States of America. That is 
what this game is all about. And all this other stuff is just hype. All 
these gaps and canyons and where is it coming from, where do you tax 
it--it is all hype. Just pick up a paper and look at the hype.
  When the clock starts the game begins. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, one fact is crystal clear as a result of 
this debate. Our friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
with a few notable and courageous exceptions, do not want a balanced 
budget. They want an outline which will make it more difficult to get a 
balanced budget. Their President has never proposed one. They have not 
proposed one. They do not plan to propose one. They fear the 
constitutional amendment because it will require them to be in that 
game as well.
  The difference is this side may not know every detail of how it is 
going to get to a balanced budget, but it wants to get there and will 
try to do so. The other side does not even want to start the journey.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  The Chair reminds the Senator all time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move the Hollings amendment be tabled. 
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the 
pending motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, following this vote, there will be a 
resolution condemning terrorist attacks in Israel. I will have that 
resolution read after this vote so we can accommodate the Members.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on that resolution. It has been agreed to 
by leaders on both sides, and many others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. That will be the last vote. There will be one more vote. 
The vote on the resolution will be the last vote.
  I remind my colleagues that we have a little dinner over here in S-
211, if they would like to partake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment numbered 182 
offered by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings]. On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is absent 
due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Indiana [Mr. Coats] and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would 
each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] is 
necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] would vote ``nay.''
  [[Page S1426]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

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

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coats
     Heflin
     Kennedy
     Simpson
  So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________