Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)

[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.

____________________