[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1488-S1495]
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.


                           Amendment No. 185

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I assume we are no longer in morning 
business.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and 
that the Senate resume consideration of amendment 185.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy.
  What I would like to do is offer a unanimous-consent agreement so we 
can then proceed with his amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume 
consideration of amendment No. 185 and that there be 1 hour, equally 
divided, on the amendment, and following the conclusion or yielding 
back of time, the majority manager or his designee be recognized to 
make a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from Minnesota very much.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today we are considering S. 1, the 
unfunded mandates bill, a bill designed, as my good friend from Idaho, 
the main sponsor of this bill, has said repeatedly, to ensure that 
information is available to Members of Congress before they vote to 
impose a mandate on a State or local government.
  As I understand the basic premise of this piece of legislation, which 
I will say to my colleague from Idaho I am very much in agreement with, 
it is really twofold.
 No. 1, we ought to be very clear about the kinds of mandates we are 
imposing on State and local governments and we ought to be accountable 
for our votes; No. 2, I think this piece of legislation is about the 
right to know. It is about the right to know both for Senators and 
Representatives and State and local government officials about a 
proposal's economic impact before we pass it.

  Mr. President, I think that is good government reform. I have said 
that to my colleague from Idaho several times. I think it is good 
instinct. I think this instinct by the Senator from Idaho is on the 
mark, but I think it might be missing for some of our colleagues. In 
particular, I want to talk a little bit about this balanced budget 
amendment, and in particular I want to give some context by talking 
about some of the comments of the House Republican Leader Armey.
  Mr. President, let me first of all be clear about the amendment that 
I have already sent to the desk that we are now considering. This is a 
sense of the Congress that the Congress should continue its progress at 
reducing the annual Federal deficit, and if the Congress proposes to 
the States a balanced budget amendment, it should accompany it with 
financial information on its impact on the budget of each of the 
States, so that States know what exactly the impact of this piece of 
legislation will be on them.
  Let me begin at the beginning. This unfunded mandates bill operates 
on the premise that information should be available to Senators and 
Representatives and to State and local government officials about the 
financial impact of legislation we are proposing and attempting to 
pass.
  Mr. President, I think that that is a very important standard for any 
piece of legislation. Mr. President, it is also true, operating on that 
premise, and that is what this amendment speaks to, that if we pass a 
balanced budget amendment we ought to be clear with States, and I want 
to talk about this really because it comes from Minnesota.
  In that sense, I have a mandate from Minnesota today regarding what 
the impact of a balanced budget amendment would be on Minnesota or any 
other State. If we are not clear about where these cuts are going to 
take place and what the impact is going to be on our States, then what 
has been called the Contract With America becomes not a contract but a 
con. I mean, if there is a mood piece in the country, it is that we 
should be honest, straightforward and direct with people, and not try 
to finesse people; tell them what we are doing and tell them what the 
impact of what we are doing will be on their lives.
  Now, in the House, House Republican Leader Armey has said about the 
balanced budget amendment, ``I am profoundly convinced that putting out 
the details would make passage virtually impossible. The details will 
not come out before passage. It's not possible.'' The Washington Post, 
January 7, 1995. Another quote: ``Because the fact of the matter is 
once Members of Congress know exactly, chapter and verse, the pain that 
the Government must live with in order to get a balanced budget, their 
knees will buckle,'' January 9, 1995, the Washington Post.
  Mr. President, people in Minnesota and people in Vermont and people 
around the country did not send us here to sign on to any piece of 
legislation without being clear with them as to what the impact of that 
legislation will be on their lives. Let me repeat that one more time, 
because that is the 
[[Page S1489]] premise of this amendment: People in Minnesota, people 
in Vermont, people in Ohio, did not send us here to pass legislation 
without understanding the implications of the legislation we pass on 
their lives. What will the impact be of a balanced budget amendment on 
Vermont, on Minnesota?
  Mr. President, people in Minnesota want to know what passage of this 
balanced budget amendment will mean to them in personal terms. In fact, 
there is a considerable amount of apprehension in my State, and I think 
in every State. I have met with not just statewide officials, but 
local--county and city--officials from small towns in Minnesota, and 
people are worried that if we pass a balanced budget amendment but do 
not spell out where we will make the cuts or what the impact will be, 
then later on they will find that they may have to assume the costs.
  For example, what would happen--and by the way, I will have figures 
that may spell out that this very well may happen--if we have cuts, the 
Senator from North Dakota spelled out the context, the $1.3 trillion 
cut. We are in a bidding war to raise the Pentagon budget; in another 
bidding war to cut taxes, taking some large programs off the table. We 
know where the cuts will be. So where will the additional funding be 
for our young people to go on to afford higher education? Who will 
assume the cost of nutrition programs for children? What about veterans 
programs? What about Medicaid-Medicare? And if a person lives in a 
State like Minnesota--I know the people in my State--we will not walk 
away from citizens who need some support so that they can become 
independent. Thus, we will end up having to pick up this cost.
  The Governor from Vermont, Governor Dean, has made this same point. 
This could become one big shell game, transferring the costs back to 
State and local units of government, I fear, relying on the property 
tax.
  Well, Mr. President, given this context, on January 12, about a week 
after I went home and met with legislative leadership and local 
officials, the Minnesota State Senate--and I would like for my 
colleagues to be very clear about this, because I think their State 
senate may well do the same thing--passed a resolution urging the U.S. 
Congress to provide these details before sending the balanced budget 
amendment to the States for ratification.
  This resolution reads, from Minnesota:

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

  This resolution was passed unanimously in the State senate by 
Democrats and Republicans alike. This really does not have anything to 
do, as a matter of fact, with the position we take on a balanced budget 
amendment. The resolution then went--this was January 12--it then went 
to the House of Delegates and on January 17, the Minnesota House of 
Delegates also passed this resolution, I think, with only three 
dissenting votes. Then it went to the Governor and last Friday, January 
20, Minnesota's Republican Governor signed the resolution.
  Mr. President, from the State of Minnesota, I ask unanimous consent 
that this resolution be included as a part of the Record. And as the 
Senator from Minnesota, I am proud to send this resolution from the 
Minnesota State Legislature, signed by the Governor of Minnesota, to 
the U.S. Senate.
  There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                            Resolution No. 1

       Whereas, the 50 States, including the State of Minnesota, 
     have long been required by their state constitutions to 
     balance their state operating budgets; and
       Whereas, the States have long done so by making difficult 
     choices each budget session to insure that their expenditures 
     do not exceed their revenues; and
       Whereas, without a federal balanced budget, the deficit may 
     continue to grow within the next ten years from $150 billion 
     gross domestic product (GDP) per year to $400 billion GDP per 
     year, continuing the serious negative impact on interest 
     rates, available credit for consumers, and taxpayer 
     obligations; and
       Whereas, the Congress of the United States, in the last two 
     years, has begun to reduce the annual federal deficit by 
     making substantial reductions in federal spending; and
       Whereas, achieving a balanced budget by the year 2002 will 
     require continued reductions in the annual deficit, averaging 
     almost 15 percent per year over the next seven years; and
       Whereas, it now appears that the Congress is willing to 
     impose on itself the same discipline that the States have 
     long had to follow, by passing a balanced-budget amendment to 
     the United States Constitution; and
       Whereas, the Congress, in working to balance the federal 
     budget, may impose on the States unfunded mandates that shift 
     to the States responsibility for carrying out programs that 
     the Congress can no longer afford; and
       Whereas, the States will better be able to revise their own 
     budgets if the Congress gives them fair warning of the 
     revisions Congress will be making in the federal budget; and
       Whereas, if the federal budget is to be brought into 
     balance by the year 2002, major reductions in the annual 
     deficit must continue without a break; and
       Whereas, these major reductions will be more acceptable to 
     the people if they are shown to be part of a realistic, long-
     term plan to balance the budget: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, 
     That it urges the Congress of the United States to continue 
     its progress at reducing the annual federal deficit and, when 
     the Congress proposes to the States a balanced-budget 
     amendment, to accompany it with financial information on its 
     impact on the budget of the State of minority for budget 
     planning purposes. Be it
       Further resolved, That the Secretary of State of Minnesota 
     shall transmit copies of this memorial to the Speaker and 
     Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, the 
     President and Secretary of the United States Senate, the 
     presiding officers of both houses of the legislature of each 
     of the other States in the Union, and to Minneosta's Senators 
     and Representatives in Congress.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, based on the Minnesota resolution, I 
therefore have offered this amendment to the unfunded mandates bill, a 
sense-of-the-Congress resolution that if the balanced budget amendment 
is sent to the States, it should be accompanied by financial 
information on the impact it will have on each State's budget. This is 
a very simple and straightforward amendment.
  Mr. President, I cannot emphasize this enough. In my State of 
Minnesota, the thing that is being asked of Members, whether we are 
Democrats or Republicans, is: Please be clear and straightforward with 
the State and please spell out for the State the kind of cuts we will 
have to make within this balanced budget amendment mandate, and please 
spell out what the impact will be on our States.
  We want to know which people are going to be affected by this. We 
want to know how much of this we are going to have to pick up through 
our own State budgets. Are we going to have to raise taxes? What kind 
of communities are going to be hurt? Let us know what the impact will 
be on our States. That is, if you will, the mandate that I take from 
the State of Minnesota to the floor of the Senate today.
  Mr. President, obviously this balanced budget amendment--and I think 
this was the meaning of Mr. Armey's quotes, is going to necessitate 
some deep cuts. In the words of House Judiciary Committee Chairman 
Hyde, once Social Security is taken off the table the ``effect on other 
Federal programs will be Draconian.''
  I did not say this, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee in the 
House, Representative Hyde, said this: The ``effect on other Federal 
programs will be Draconian.''
  I think that statement is an understatement. The arithmetic of this 
equation is harsh, as we know full well. That is why I believe too many 
of my colleagues are unwilling to be straightforward with the people we 
represent. We are going to raise the military budget, we are going to 
have more tax cuts, we clearly are not going to be cutting into Social 
Security. And we know what programs are left, we know the importance of 
those programs and we know the kind of cuts that are going to take 
place.
  We are talking about aid to States for State and local law 
enforcement agencies. We are talking about highway maintenance and 
construction. We are talking about education. We are talking about 
college and small business loans. And we are talking about hungry 
children and the elderly.
  Mr. President, let me just lay out some Treasury Department 
estimates 
[[Page S1490]] for my State of Minnesota, and other Senators, I think, 
have this data as it pertains to their States.
  The Treasury Department estimates that Minnesota will have to 
increase State taxes by 9.4 percent across the board to make up for the 
loss in grants. This is even before factoring in what would be the 
effect of additional offsets in cuts if we do a lot of tax cuts or we 
dramatically increase the Pentagon budget.
  The loss of this grant assistance to the State of Minnesota would 
mean that in the year 2002, the Treasury Department estimates, we would 
have a loss of $679 million in Medicaid.
  Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that half of Medicaid 
expenditures go into taking care of older people in nursing homes; $679 
million less in Medicaid; $102 million less for highway trust fund 
grants; $83 million less in AFDC, and, by the way, Mr. President, 
because sometimes I think some of my colleagues do not understand it, 
aid to families with dependent children goes, by definition, mostly to 
children. We are talking about parents, often a single parent--almost 
always a woman--and children.
  And $314 million cuts in funding for education, job training, the 
environment, housing and other areas.
  The Department of Commerce estimates that Minnesota over 7 years, 
leading up to 2002 as potential impact: Education would lose $1.5 
billion; environmental protection could lose $74.6 million; disease 
control and prevention would lose $9.8 million; Fish and Wildlife 
Service would lose $16.7 million, law enforcement would lose over $143 
million.
  Mr. President, children's defense fund estimates that the cuts in 
Minnesota in 2002 would result in the following, just in Minnesota:
  Almost 30,000 babies, preschoolers and pregnant women would lose WIC 
nutrition supplements;
  Over 51,000 children would lose food stamps; over 154,000 children 
would lose free or subsidized lunches; over 93,000 children would lose 
Medicaid health coverage.
  Over 59,000 children would lose State child support agency help in 
establishing paternity or collecting child support; almost 38,000 
children would lose welfare benefits; over 2,400 blind and disabled 
children would lose SSI, that is supplemental security income; 3,900 
children would lose Federal child care subsidies; over 2,500 children 
would lose Head Start early childhood services; and 28,000 children 
would lose child and adult food care programs.
  Mr. President, this is the point: I will not even preach about what 
all these statistics mean in personal terms. I will not even argue with 
my colleagues, if they are so inclined, over these figures. We do not 
know the exact figures, and that is what Minnesota has said in this 
resolution, passed unanimously by the House, passed almost unanimously 
by the Senate, signed by the Governor. I bring it here to the floor of 
the Senate, and this amendment that I have offered, which is this 
resolution from Minnesota, says if we pass the balanced budget 
amendment, then at least we ought to include with that balanced budget 
amendment a financial analysis of its impact on our States. This is a 
reasonable amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time waiting for other 
colleagues who may want to respond.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from North Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I first want to comment on the 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. It seems to be an amendment 
with the primary purpose of stopping cutting and spending in this 
country. The balanced budget amendment and the unfunded mandates are 
closely tied.
  We have not even passed the balanced budget amendment and yet we are 
saying what great damage it is going to do to the States. We are, in 
effect, planning the funeral during the birth. We need to wait and see.
  For 30 years, that I am well aware of, we have passed law after law 
after law--this Congress has--that has had an irrevocable and 
permanently damaging effect upon the fiscal condition of the States, 
counties, and cities of this Nation. New taxes, new rules,and new 
mandates and not one time have we ever made a study, or I have even 
heard it suggested, that we let the States, the citizens of the 
counties know what we are going to do to them. For 30-plus years, we 
simply did it, and then it hit and they had to figure out a way to 
cover it.
  There has not been a local budget that has really been accurate in 
this country in 30 years, because every year, particularly the counties 
have had to go back and increase taxes to take care of the mandates 
that we have placed on them.
  Now, all of a sudden from the other side of the aisle, it becomes 
absolutely necessary that we do a definitive fiscal analysis of what 
effect this might have upon cities and counties and States.
  Certainly we need to be sensitive and cognizant of what effect it 
might have on the cities and counties, but first let us get on with 
stopping spending instead of thinking of ways to keep on spending. We 
are going in debt at something like $800 million a day. We already have 
a $5 trillion debt, so let us get to what we ought to be doing and that 
is stopping spending.
  The thing we have to do first is to cut the spending. If we will take 
the mandates off of the local governments, then they can handle their 
problems. They will know what to cut and what not to cut because they 
know. But the first thing we have to do is get rid of the mandates.
  Now, I came to the Senate after 45 years in the private sector as a 
businessman and farmer. I watched and literally for the last 35 years 
not one time has the Congress convened and adjourned that they did not 
pass rules, regulations and laws making it more difficult to operate a 
business. The intent of these laws, we heard, was that they were going 
to help business, but not one single one of them ever did or has. They 
hurt people in the private sector.
  I can think of no better example of this same rule going to the 
public sector than the mandates we have been dictating to State and 
local governments without providing any money to pay for them. The 
unfunded mandates have been a fiscal disaster for local governments. We 
simply tell them what the problem is and for them to find the money to 
cover the solution. It amounts to something that the Constitution says 
we cannot do, and that is for one branch of Government to levy a tax 
upon another. And we are doing it blatantly when we tell the counties 
of this Nation that they simply have to come up with this money and 
their only source of it is ad valorum taxes or local sales tax. We 
should not be telling them how and where and when to levy a tax.
  In typical fashion, Federal Government bureaucrats and Congress think 
they have all wisdom of what should be done at the local level. The 
Federal Government and its bureaucrats think that the local government 
has come to Delphi, and they have the wisdom and will tell us what to 
do. All they have to do at the county level is pay the bills.
  That is wrong, Mr. President.
  A recent editorial described it pretty accurately:

       In recent years, as deficits have cramped Washington's 
     style, legislators have taken to issuing commands to State 
     and local governments. Those lower governments are forced to 
     pick up the tab, while Federal legislators take credit for 
     enlightened policy. (That means more spending.)

  This severing of decisionmaking from the paying of the bill is what 
has gotten us the trouble we are in today, and it has invited 
undisciplined spending. It has encouraged the spending of money we do 
not have. It has encouraged entitlement programs that, if the Federal 
Government had to pay the total bill, would not be out there.
  It burdens State and local governments, and it takes away the 
discretion of county commissioners, city councilmen and State 
legislators to decide where the money should be spent that they bring 
in in taxes, that they tax the people for. The decision has already 
been made in Washington.
  In some of these counties it is absolutely ludicrous. I will take the 
county I live in, and if you will look at a lot of counties around the 
State you will see they are not a lot different. But I am going to take 
one federally mandated program in the county in which I have spent my 
life. This is Sampson 
[[Page S1491]] County, a rural county in eastern North Carolina. The 
total ad valorem taxes collected in that county are, more or less, $10 
million. This is the total county tax collection. Would you believe 
that the Medicaid Program for that county is $30 million a year, of 
which the county has to put up 5 percent? We have not had a budget in 
the last 10 years that we have not had to go back and adjust to pick up 
the increases in the cost of Medicaid.
  Now, if you will look at the counties, in particular the more rural 
and agrarian counties, you will find this same pattern, that the total 
county ad valorum tax collection is often only half or even, as in our 
case, a third of what is the Medicaid program in the county and what is 
our percentage of these unfunded mandates.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. This bill will fix the problem by requiring the 
Congressional Budget Office to estimate the costs to the lower 
governments before we pass prospective legislation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Yes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield? Would the question be on the 
Senator's time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No. But that is not why I asked the question.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Carolina yield on 
his time? The Chair might advise the Senator he has less than 30 
seconds.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. When I finish, I will yield for the Senator's 
question.
  Currently, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 12 percent 
of all bills that Congress has passed since 1983, nearly 800, contain 
unfunded mandates with a cost per bill of the 800 of over $200 million.
  It is long past time that those in the Congress--us, we--should take 
responsibility for these actions and stop issuing the mandates.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would indicate that the Senator has 
used his 10 minutes. The Senator was yielded 10 minutes and that time 
has expired.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would be happy to yield the Senator an additional 2 
minutes so he can conclude his remarks and in that time if he wished to 
respond to the Senator from Minnesota. Two minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is further recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Yes. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 5 minutes 
additional time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield 5 minutes?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I will not need 5.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. The Senator will yield 3 minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Three minutes. Good enough.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Simply, we are writing these laws and sending them to 
the States COD. It is time we send them with the bills paid when we 
pass the law. The States are tired, the cities are tired, and the 
counties are broke paying for mandates that we send from here.
  Mr. President, I do want to thank the Senator from Idaho [Mr. 
Kempthorne] for the leadership he has taken in it. When he came to the 
Senate, it was one of the first things he talked about. He has followed 
it. He has followed it closely. I know that he served for many years as 
mayor of Boise, ID. He has firsthand knowledge of how it works, 
whatever goes on. And he has done an excellent job of presenting the 
bill to the floor and to the Senate, and for that I wish to thank him. 
I think it is fitting that he be the leader in ending an abuse that has 
gone on far too long.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I will be glad to answer the 
question of the Senator from Minnesota, if he will speak loud enough so 
I can hear him.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think the Senator has probably run 
out of his time so I will not ask him to yield. I will just comment 
very briefly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 17\1/2\ minutes 
remaining on his time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator from Minnesota allow me, then, to 
proceed with the next speaker so in your summary----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, since the Senator from North Carolina 
no longer has any time to yield, I might just quickly respond. I will 
take 2 minutes. Then I will be pleased to reserve the rest of my time.
  Mr. President, just very briefly, I appreciate what the Senator from 
North Carolina said. But I do want colleagues to know, who are about to 
vote on this, that this amendment does not say no to S. 1, to unfunded 
mandates. This amendment does not say no to a balanced budget 
amendment. This amendment, as a matter of fact, based upon the 
Minnesota resolution, memorializes Congress for continuing its work on 
Federal deficit reduction. The only thing this amendment says--and I do 
not think the Senator really responded to this amendment--was that if 
we pass a balanced budget amendment, we ought to accompany this with 
financial information on its impact on the budget of each of the 
States.
  This came from Minnesota. It was passed unanimously by the Senate, 
Democrats and Republicans alike. It was passed almost unanimously in 
the House. It was signed by the Republican Governor.
  It focuses on deficit reduction, but it says: Look, Federal 
Government, in the spirit of unfunded mandates, tell us what the impact 
is going to be on our States of a balanced budget amendment. That is 
all this amendment says. So I think the Senator from North Carolina had 
some interesting comments, but I do not think they spoke directly to 
this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 17 minutes and 17 
seconds.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to 
the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it is rare that I differ with my colleague 
from Minnesota. He is one of those who has really brought compassion to 
this body and I have great respect for him. One of the best things that 
has happened in the U.S. Senate since I have been here is the election 
of Paul Wellstone to the U.S. Senate.
  I differ with him on this for two basic reasons.
  No 1, the argument that is made against the balanced budget amendment 
by those who oppose it is that we can do this, we can balance the 
budget, without a balanced budget amendment. Therefore, the pain 
inflicted would, in theory, be the same, whether we have the balanced 
budget amendment or whether we do not, with one exception. And that 
exception is this: Every econometric study shows if we pass the 
balanced budget amendment, we are going to have lower interest rates. 
If you have lower interest rates, you will have an easier time 
balancing the budget with a constitutional amendment. If you have lower 
interest rates, you are going to stimulate investment and employment; 
you are going to stimulate revenue for the Federal Government, for 
State and local governments. That is No. 1. So I think you cannot make 
an argument both that this is going to hurt and we can balance the 
budget without the constitutional amendment.
  Second, we have to ask as we look at States and local governments, 
what will happen if we do not have a balanced budget amendment? You 
look at that GAO report of 1992--and it would be modified some, thanks 
to the vote of the Senator and mine in passing that budget in August 
1993--but they say, in that report that if we follow the basic path we 
are on now that by the year 2020 their projection is, because of 
interest growth and entitlement growth, that social services would be 
cut by one-third and defense cut by two-thirds.
  Frankly--my colleague from Minnesota has been around here long 
enough. I do not think that is the way the pie would be cut. I think it 
is much more likely that it would be closer to 50-50, on both sides. 
But that assumes--the GAO report assumes, optimistically--that we do 
not monetize the debt, that we do not just start the printing presses 
rolling.
   [[Page S1492]] The history of countries--and we may hope we will be 
an exception to this history--but the history of nations is, when you 
get around 9 percent of deficit versus GDP, except for a wartime 
situation, you start monetizing the debt. We are going to go beyond 
that.
  I ask the Members of this body just to take a look at what happened 
in New York City. This was before my colleague from Minnesota was here 
as a Member of this body. New York City faced bankruptcy. New York City 
was rescued by the U.S. Government. But New York City had to cut its 
programs for poor people up to 47 percent.
  There is no United States of America, no big umbrella, to rescue this 
country. We are one-fifth of the world's economy. If we go down the 
tube economically, there is nobody out there to rescue us. The 
International Monetary Fund cannot begin to deal with our problem. The 
International Monetary Fund, in the case of Mexico, is offering to help 
to the tune of about $2 or $3 billion in guarantees. They cannot go 
further than that.
  So, though I have great respect for my colleague from Minnesota, I do 
believe this amendment should be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield a minute to myself to respond.
  May I ask how much time I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 10 minutes and 
48 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first of all, it is certainly rare the Senator from 
Illinois and I are in disagreement on an issue. I am hoping to persuade 
him to change his mind before the final vote because I want the Senator 
to know that, No. 1, when he talks about econometric models he is 
absolutely right; there are a variety of different variables, including 
factoring in the effect of lower interest rates, that would be 
included.
  This is not an amendment against the balanced budget amendment. I 
mean, many State senators and representatives who signed this 
resolution, or voted for this resolution, are for it, I say to my 
colleague from Illinois. The only thing they are saying is, if or 
when--your choice--you pass a balanced budget amendment, please 
accompany it with a financial analysis so we can have some sense of 
what the impact will be on the States.
  I say to my good colleague, that is where your econometric model 
would be figured in. We should do that. It is a matter of State and 
local government officials having the right to know--which is very much 
within the framework, I might say, of the unfunded mandates 
legislation.
  And finally, I have to say this to my colleague, and this is our 
honest and profound disagreement: My colleague from Illinois is willing 
to make the difficult choices, which means he is not going to be 
involved in a bidding war to raise the Pentagon budget. He is not going 
to be involved in a bidding war for yet more tax cuts. He is not going 
to take everything off the table. And he is not just going to do 
deficit reduction according to the path of least resistance, focused on 
those citizens with the least amount of political clout.
  But there is every reason in the world to believe that is precisely 
what we are going to do here and that is what people are worried about 
back in the States. That is what people in the States are worried 
about, and they want us to be clear with them. That is all this 
amendment says.
  If we pass it, let us accompany it with a financial analysis of its 
impact on the States. That is from Minnesota, passed unanimously by the 
State Senate, passed almost unanimously by the House, and passed and 
signed into law by a Republican Governor. I do not think this is 
unreasonable.
  So Senators should understand this is all they are voting on.
  Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I may yield on the other side's time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMON. May I have 1 minute?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Just for 1 minute. I thank my colleague, and if this 
passes, if the balanced budget amendment passes--and I believe it 
will--then I think we have to at that point let State and local 
governments know, let everyone know what kind of a glidepath we are on. 
I do not think we need to do that prior to passage. I think that 
compounds the problems of passage--very candidly.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take my own time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  MR. WELLSTONE. This amendment reads, after we pass it, we should do 
this. That is the way this amendment reads.
  Mr. SIMON. If that is correct, then I withdraw my opposition.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Then we should do the analysis.
  Mr. SIMON. Then I withdraw my opposition. In that case, I have no 
objection to the amendment. Once again, I am on the same side as my 
colleague from Minnesota.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I want to acknowledge and thank the 
Senator from Illinois, who certainly has been one of the leaders on the 
balanced budget amendment, and also two Senators that will now be 
speaking, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] and the Senator from Idaho 
[Mr. Craig], again leaders on this balanced budget amendment.
  So I yield 5 minutes now to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I cannot see a reason in the world why on 
legislation regarding unfunded mandates we should have an amendment 
like this or why we should spend 2 minutes on it.
  We all know the balanced budget amendment is going to come up within 
days on the House floor and within a week on the Senate floor, that is 
if we ever get through this unfunded mandates bill. If we do not get 
through this legislation pretty quick, we will not get through the 
Mexican loan guarantee legislation with all its problems, which are 
very, very serious.
  As I say, I am not sure why we are here debating this issue now. We 
are supposed to be passing a bill to provide relief to the States from 
unfunded mandates. Everyone knows we are going to have ample time to 
debate the balanced budget amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate, 
and we should not hold up this bill to debate an amendment like this.
  The provision that the Senator would like us to have--I know he is 
sincere; I have watched the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for 
his whole Senate career, and I know he is sincere--but this amendment 
puts the cart before the horse. It puts the cart before the horse in 
two ways: First, in time since this debate should happen on the 
balanced budget amendment itself, not here; and second, this amendment 
cannot be complied with as it is written. The balanced budget amendment 
requires the Congress of the United States to work to balance the 
budget. It does not write a particular mix of cuts or taxes into the 
Constitution. It is for the Congress to work toward resolution of those 
particular issues and to set the priorities within the budget from year 
to year.
  If we could get back to the business at hand and pass the unfunded 
mandates bill, it will give the States a measure of protection against 
Washington's mandates, and if the statutory route is insufficient, then 
the States may want us to pursue a constitutional amendment on unfunded 
mandates. But let us pass the unfunded mandates bill first. Let us get 
on to debate the passage of the balanced budget amendment and get the 
Nation's fiscal house in order by balancing the budget without first 
burdening or binding the States. We need to get on with it, but we need 
to do it in a reasonable order.
  The problem--just to spend a minute or two on this amendment--and I 
note that the Senator is very sincere. What he would like in this 
sense-of-the-Congress amendment is that when Congress proposes to the 
States a balanced budget amendment--assuming a balanced budget 
amendment is passed through both Houses of Congress by the requisite 
two-thirds vote--then Congress must accompany it with financial 
information on the impact on the budget on each of the States.
   [[Page S1493]] I would point out that we have trouble even getting 
CBO and other budget baseline scoring mechanisms to give us sound and 
timely information on what we are doing, let alone having them analyze 
what each and every State in the Union has to do. Under this amendment, 
we would be spending all our time trying to understand a continually 
shifting set of State problems and how our budget might impact on them. 
I think we need to worry about how the Federal budget can be reduced 
between the time of the passage of the balanced budget amendment and 
the year 2002, if that is the effective date of the amendment. I do not 
want to get into a situation where we must also worry about the choices 
of each of the States, and we complicate passing the balanced budget 
amendment while attempting to get information like this that could cost 
us hundreds of millions of dollars to get.
  Again, this amendment is just another unnecessary provision. The 
minute we pass the balanced budget amendment, this Congress will have 
to start working on coming up with a mechanism to get to a balanced 
budget. I might add not just the Congress; the President is going to 
have to work on coming up with the mechanism beyond the balanced budget 
amendment to bring us into fiscal balance by the year 2002. I have to 
tell you, nobody in Congress and the Congress as a whole will be able 
to do that without the leadership of the President of the United 
States. That has been the problem up to now. We have not had 
Presidential leadership to tell us what we have to do to balance the 
budget, short of increasing taxes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HATCH. If I could just finish. The fact of the matter is this 
amendment would cloud the whole issue. It would require us to do 
continual budgetary analysis of State budgets--there are 50 of them; we 
cannot even handle the Federal budget--and thousands of Federal 
programs tailored to each State and how it impacts each State. We would 
have to put in place, before ratification, not only the budget for each 
year until 2002, which of course we cannot do because we cannot bind 
future Congresses, but we must analyze what we guess each of the 50 
States would do in each of those years in response to our assumptions 
about what future Congresses would do. And since we cannot either bind 
future Congresses, nor should be attempt to tell the States how they 
should respond, we would have a continually shifting process, with 
continually changing information. We just do not have the capacity to 
comply with this amendment. And I do not know how we would ever get 535 
Members of Congress to agree on all these forecasts of future 
Congressional actions and the responses of and effects on each of the 
50 States.
  Furthermore, this amendment assumes that the States, which are very 
capable, would be unable to do their own analysis and make its own 
decisions about its budget priorities and come to its own decision 
about ratification. I think the States should participate in the 
process of setting the national budget priorities, especially as it 
will affect their own freedom to set priorities for themselves.
  Mr. President, this is the wrong way to proceed. We need to get the 
mechanism in place that will require Congress to balance the budget 
before we can balance the budget. And before that we cannot tell what a 
balanced budget would look like. We cannot tell the States what they 
should or may do in response to either the balanced budget amendment or 
a balanced Federal budget. This unfunded mandates bill that we are 
supposed to be debating has the purpose of curbing such Washingtonian 
imperialism. And finally, we cannot project what future Congresses will 
do. In fact we often cannot project very far into the future the 
effects of our present budgetary decisions. We cannot bind future 
Congresses to a particular budget. Nor should we. It is the right and 
duty of each Congress to set its own national priorities in the budget 
while complying with a balanced budget rule.
  I hope this amendment is voted down. It is unnecessary and unwise, 
and adds an unnecessary cost to our society.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. What I just heard the Senator say--and, by the way, it 
is part of the response to the discussion I had with the Senator from 
Illinois. What this amendment says, a sense of the Congress, coming 
right from Minnesota is that if we pass a balanced budget amendment, 
then before we send it to the States we ought to have for the States a 
financial analysis of the impact. What I am hearing the Senator say is 
it is too hard for us to do that.
  So do you not think, I would say to my colleague from Utah, or my 
colleague from Idaho, or Ohio, or Georgia, our States have the right to 
know? Do you not think our States have the right, as Minnesota as a 
State, to say to us, ``Look. After you pass this, if you pass it, 
before you send it to us, will you please give us an analysis of its 
impact on our States?'' And now I hear the Senator from Utah saying it 
is too hard. We are talking about all sorts of amendments and all sorts 
of legislation in the unfunded mandates bill making sure that an 
analysis is done. We did not say it is too hard for that. We are 
talking about the right to know for our colleagues and for people back 
at the State and local communities. Now, when it comes to a huge 
decision we are going to make, we are saying it is too hard, that we 
cannot, after we pass this, let our States know what the impact of this 
legislation will be on that.
  I find that to be an interesting argument. But I certainly hope my 
colleagues will not be swayed by it.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield on the time of the Senator 
from Utah, if I could.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me 1 minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Utah for purposes of 
responding.
  Mr. HATCH. Now, look. I guess there is nothing that is too hard if we 
have enough money and enough time and enough bodies and enough people 
and enough economists to do it. The question is, is it prudent, is it 
warranted, is it worth the cost? The fact of the matter is we cannot 
get CBO scoring the way we need to have it on time in order to do the 
things that we need to do in this body. Do we need to add to it a 
continually shifting set of State budgetary priorities, for each of 50 
States, and have us be on top of every one of those priorities, and 
spend all the money to do that? No. What we have to do is get our own 
fiscal house in order. The States will adapt to it, each in its own way 
guided by the wisdom and needs of its own citizens. But I would add 
that we have to have Presidential and congressional leadership for us 
all to do so.
  Finally, Mr. President, everybody knows that this type of amendment 
is for one purpose; that is, to undermine the balanced budget 
amendment. That is the sole and specific reason for it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to yield to the Senator from Ohio, 
but if I could just respond.
  First of all, I do not want Senators to be able to vote on the basis 
of a dodge. This amendment in no way, shape, or form is opposed to the 
balanced budget amendment. Senators have different views on that. I can 
assure my colleague from Utah, my good friend, that the Minnesota House 
of Representatives and the Minnesota State Senate passed it by 
overwhelming votes and it was signed by a Republican Governor there. 
There is strong support by many of these colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, for a balanced budget amendment. The only thing they 
have said is, from our perspective in Minnesota, I think from the 
perspective in Utah and other States, how are we going to know whether 
or not to ratify this unless we know what the impact is going to be? If 
we are going to pass something that is so far reaching, it is our right 
to know. Can you not provide 
[[Page S1494]] specific information? Can you not provide specific 
analysis? That is all this amendment says.
  I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague.
  I just say that I hope the same logic is used by the Senator from 
Utah when Senator Grassley's amendment comes up because the 
interpretation of his amendment would mean we go back 21 years and 
require a study of all mandates--all mandates, period. It does not have 
a $50 million threshold to it, as I understand it.
  It would be such an enormous study that we requested CBO to give us 
figures on how much it would cost them to do such a study, and they 
cannot give us an estimate right now. In other words, we are putting an 
unfunded mandate on CBO. He is concerned about CBO and I am, too, but I 
think the logic of what the Senator is trying to do should also be 
carried over to the consideration of Grassley, which would be an 
enormous study, beyond anything I would see proposed here.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have not referenced CBO. I have said it is up to us 
in our Budget Committee to come up with an analysis.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield a few moments to the Senator from Utah to respond.
  Mr. HATCH. Last year, at the height of one of the most important 
debates last year, the battle over health care, we could not get the 
economic analysis of just health care in sufficient time for our 
analysis, and that involved just the President's and one or two other 
health care programs. There were all kinds of other programs to be 
considered, but there was no time to get the full economic analysis. 
The fact of the matter is that what the Senator from Minnesota is 
asking for would cost an arm and a leg and would not get us closer to a 
balanced budget anyway--indeed it would place us further away because 
of the increased costs in performing the analysis.
  I will look at Senator Grassley's amendment, because I think we have 
to look at what these costs are. But, really, this type of an amendment 
does not have an efficacious effect. It is going to cost us. We do not 
have the facilities or the resources to do it. We have to determine 
here what we can do to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. It is 
going to take time to do it and it is going to be costly in and of 
itself, without worrying about 50 States, and we should let future 
Congresses and each of the States make up its own mind about how it 
wishes to comply with a Federal rule of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho. I 
believe my good friend from Minnesota did not vote for the balanced 
budget amendment. I have to conclude that the essence of this amendment 
is to reinforce a message we heard last night from the President when 
he defined, in my judgment, his decision about the new Democrat and old 
Democrat, when he decided to oppose the balanced budget. He wanted 
things to stay the same in Washington.
  He underscored his dispute with the balanced budget amendment by 
beginning to raise the specter of fear across the land, and began 
pointing to specific groups. This is but an extension of that context, 
to try to suggest to the States that there is something for them to 
fear about this Nation finally taking charge and putting in motion a 
discipline to govern its financial affairs.
  That is what this amendment is designed to do--to suggest that there 
is something to be feared. I might say, following on the remarks of my 
good colleague from Utah, it goes beyond a question of the consumption 
of analysis as to how this would impact States. The point is that there 
is no way to determine what the judgments of future Congresses might--
not even including all the august Members that are here--do in order to 
arrive at a balanced budget. This presupposes that you could suggest 
what is going to happen in the future, and you cannot.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me conclude the time on our side by 
looking at what past Congresses have done when they proposed amendments 
to the Constitution.
  What the Senator is suggesting in his amendment is that the first 
Congress would have been able to anticipate that in the first amendment 
we would have said that yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater is 
against that amendment. But that is not what the first Congress said 
about the first amendment, because they did not know at the time. They 
did not understand, or they could not anticipate, what a court would 
suggest.
  What this is saying is that in the second amendment we would have 
said it was intended to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. That 
is not what our Founding Fathers said at the time. They did not know.
  Or we could have said the fourth amendment required reading aspects 
of the Miranda rights into the decision. Or maybe we would have said, 
in a post-Civil War Congress, that we knew 100 years subsequent how we 
would anticipate all of the civil rights that would have come under the 
Constitution. No, I do not think that was intended, and I do not 
believe that any Congress can anticipate what a constitutional 
amendment will do beyond the clarity of the language of the 
Constitution itself, and that is that we will have a balanced budget 
amendment in a period of time.
  Now it would then be the responsibility of Congresses following the 
enactment of an amendment as they begin to shift the priorities of 
Government, as they begin to downsize the rate of growth in Government, 
to turn to States and say: These kinds of impacts could occur. I think 
that would be the responsibility.
  I hope the Senate will vote down this amendment in a tabling motion, 
because I do not believe it is possible for us to project 7 years out 
into the future what future Congresses might do and what impact it 
would have upon the States.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, with all due respect to my colleagues 
that it is my joy to serve with, I think a lot of these arguments just 
miss the central point. I want all of my colleagues to be clear on what 
they are voting on.
  This is not a sense-of-the-Congress amendment that says we should not 
pass a balanced budget amendment. They are not voting on that. This is 
not a sense-of-the-Congress amendment or sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
that says we should be voting against unfunded mandates at all. In 
fact, the unfunded mandates legislation says that senators and 
representatives in our State and local governments are entitled to 
information, entitled to a right to know before we pass legislation and 
do not tell them anything about the impact or come up with the money.
  This amendment is a mandate from Minnesota, strong bipartisan support 
in a resolution that emphasized deficit reduction. Then it ended up 
saying:

       . . . be it Resolved by the legislature of the State of 
     Minnesota, that it urges the Congress of the United States to 
     continue its progress in reducing the annual Federal deficit, 
     and when the Congress proposes the balanced budget amendment, 
     to accompany it with financial information on the impact on 
     the budget of the State of Minnesota.

  My amendment says if we pass a balanced budget amendment before we 
send it to the States, which by definition would be after we pass it, 
we should do an analysis of its financial impact on our States. How can 
our States then make decisions about whether or not to ratify it unless 
we are willing to provide them with the information?
  Mr. President, I am just amazed by some of the arguments that have 
been made on the floor of the Senate because they do not speak to the 
central issue.
  I say to my colleagues that this vote on this amendment is all about 
accountability. This is all about being direct with people. It is all 
about responding to our States. It is all about the concern that people 
have, about where will $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion in cuts take us 
between now and 2002. What will be its effect on citizens in Minnesota, 
Idaho, Georgia, Utah, all across the country? Minnesota State 
legislators, Republicans and Democrats alike, and the Republican 
Governor, are bipartisan and have sent a resolution here. I translated 
that into an amendment. It is an eminently reasonable request that I 
think will come 
[[Page S1495]] from all of our State legislatures and Governors, which 
is: If you pass the balanced budget amendment, then before you send it 
to the States, please do an economic analysis of it so we will know the 
impact on our States and on our people. Are we going to have to raise 
taxes at the State level? Is that what we are afraid to tell our 
colleagues at the State level? Are our local governments going to have 
to rely more on the property tax? Is this going to become the biggest 
unfunded mandate of all, where we just transfer costs back to State and 
local governments? Is that why we are unwilling to pass this amendment, 
a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, that we at least, before we send this 
to the States, have an accompanying financial analysis?
  I hope that this amendment will attract strong bipartisan support. It 
is all about the rights of people back in our States to know what we 
are doing. It is all about accountability. It is all about good 
government. It is all about being direct and straightforward with 
people, and this amendment should pass by a huge vote in the U.S. 
Senate.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the 
Senator from Minnesota, and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on the second-degree amendment numbered 186 of the 
Senator from Minnesota to the first-degree amendment No. 185.
  Does the Senator from Idaho wish to table the first-degree amendment 
or the second-degree amendment?
  Mr. CRAIG. I wish to table amendment No. 185.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is to table amendment No. 185.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion of the Senator 
from Idaho [Mr. Craig] to table the amendment of the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone]. 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.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     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
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Simpson
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 185) 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.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me state for the benefit of my 
colleagues, we do have a meeting at 2 o'clock today. Hopefully, 
everybody will come--Senators only, no staff--to talk about a number of 
things that affect us, not as Senators, as Republicans or Democrats, 
but as people who live around here.
  I think during that period, we will not recess because I think there 
will be an amendment offered. But I want to point out, we still have 39 
amendments. This is the 11th day and we still have 39 amendments to 
this bill. We are going to finish the bill this week, if it takes all 
day today until midnight, all day tomorrow until midnight, all day 
Friday, and all day Saturday. We are going to finish the bill this 
week.
  So I hope that Members are prepared to offer amendments and give us 
time agreements, or not offer amendments. I cannot believe that every 
one of the 39 amendments, whether they are on this side of the aisle or 
that side of the aisle, needs to be offered. So we will finish this 
bill this week sometime. We may file cloture if we do not get some 
action on some of the amendments. It is 12:15. We disposed of one 
little amendment. We have 39 left.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, in response to the majority leader's 
comments, we are working very hard trying to get just as many lined up 
with time agreements as short as possible so we can move it along. I 
know the majority leader's desire to end this this week. We are 
certainly cooperating in that endeavor to that end. We are trying very 
hard to line things up just as fast as we can, to get them tailored 
with the shortest time agreement as possible. I think we are making 
some progress, and we will continue.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as in morning business not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of S. 274 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I ask unanimous 
consent that at 1:30 p.m. the Senate turn to the consideration of 
amendment No. 202 by Senator Boxer and there be time for debate prior 
to a motion to table divided in the following fashion: 90 minutes under 
the control of Senator Boxer, 30 minutes under the control of Senator 
Kempthorne. I further ask unanimous consent no amendments be in order 
to amendment No. 202, and that following the conclusion or yielding 
back of time, the majority manager or his designee be recognized to 
move to table amendment No. 202 and that upon the disposition of 
amendment No. 202 the Senate turn to the consideration of amendment No. 
187.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________