[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3547-S3555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 244, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 244) to further the goals of the Paperwork 
     Reduction Act to have Federal agencies become more 
     responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden 
     of Federal paperwork on the public, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Michigan will offer an amendment on which there will be 10 minutes 
equally divided.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 319

(Purpose: To provide for the elimination and modification of reports by 
    Federal departments and agencies to the Congress, and for other 
                               purposes)

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

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr. 
     Cohen, proposes an amendment numbered 319.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. 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 appears in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer today in behalf of 
Senator Cohen and myself the Federal Reports Elimination and 
Modification Act of 1995 as an amendment to the pending bill.
  Our amendment will eliminate over 200 outdated and unnecessary 
reporting requirements. These are reporting requirements which have 
been placed into the law over many, many years that are now useless. 
These are over 200 reports that are not needed or used by congressional 
committees. They require up to $10 million of cost in their 
preparation. We have gone through each of the reports mandated by law. 
We have talked to each of the agencies. We have consulted with each of 
the congressional committees. This is the list of those reports which 
are totally dispensable which for the most part no one even uses 
anymore. But they just stay in the law, filed every year or every 6 
months by agencies at great cost.
  My subcommittee, the oversight subcommittee of governmental affairs, 
which Senator Cohen now chairs and which I am now the ranking member 
of, has gone through all of the reporting requirements. We have again 
made this assessment as to those reports. Each committee having 
proposed what their needs are, these reports are the ones that are no 
longer needed.
   [[Page S3548]] This legislation is designed to improve the 
efficiency of agency operations by eliminating unnecessary paperwork 
and staff time by consolidating the amount of information that flows 
from the agencies to Congress.
  So this amendment is the product of a coordinated and a thorough and 
aggressive effort to identify the congressionally mandated agency 
reporting requirements that have outlived their usefulness and now 
serve only as an unnecessary drain on agency resources,
 resources that could be devoted to more important program use. In 
fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment of this 
legislation could result in savings of up to $5 to $10 million.

  This is the second wave of reports elimination from the Subcommittee 
on Oversight of Government Management which Senator Cohen chairs and on 
which I now serve as the ranking Democrat. We passed a similar bill 
that eliminated or modified other reporting requirements in 1985.
  Since it had been over 8 years since that effort, I decided it was 
time once again to take a look at agency reporting requirements that 
we, in Congress, have enacted and take those reports that have outlived 
their usefulness off our books. That is much easier said than done. 
There are literally thousands of different congressionally mandated 
reporting requirements. Each of those reporting requirements was 
enacted for a reason. To make a responsible choice about whether or not 
a particular reporting requirement should be eliminated, that reason 
must be identified and evaluated as to whether it remains valid. That 
is time-consuming, painstaking work; however, it is necessary work.
  For example, by the time the 1985 legislation was enacted into law, 
the number of report eliminations contained in the bill had dropped 
from over 100 on introduction to just 23. The General Accounting Office 
[GAO] did a review of the 1985 reports elimination effort to see why 
the number of reports in the bill dropped so drastically. GAO uncovered 
certain weaknesses in that effort; primarily that the agencies did not 
consult with Congress when making their recommendations for 
eliminations or modifications and that the agency recommendations were 
not accompanied by adequate justifications.
  We took heed of GAO's findings in developing this legislation. The 
1985 legislation was based on a list of agency recommendations 
generated by the Office of Management and Budget. This time around, 
there was no such list available, so we had to generate our own. In 
1993, Senator Cohen and I wrote to all 89 executive and independent 
agencies and asked that they identify reports required by law that they 
believe are no longer necessary or useful and, therefore, that could be 
eliminated or modified. In our request letter, we stressed the 
importance of a clear and substantiated justification for each 
recommendation made.
  We received responses from about 80 percent of the agencies. For the 
most part, the agencies made a serious effort to review and recommend a 
respectable number of reporting requirements for elimination, but given 
the opportunity our effort presented, some were surprisingly less 
aggressive. Certain agencies already had report elimination projects 
underway. For example, the Department of Defense, at the request of 
Senator McCain, conducted an internal review of the congressionally 
mandated reporting requirements for all of its services. Numerous 
reporting requirements were then eliminated and modified in the fiscal 
year 1995 defense authorization bill and were not included, therefore, 
in this legislation.
  After receiving the agency responses, a member of the
   subcommittee staff generated a master list of all the agency 
recommendations. At the same time we sent to the chairman and ranking 
member of each of the relevant Senate committees, for their review and 
comment, the recommendations made by the agencies under their 
respective jurisdictions. Feedback from the committees of jurisdiction 
is necessary to ensure that this effort eliminates as many reporting 
requirements as possible without losing needed information. We also 
asked that the committees provide us with any additional 
recommendations for eliminations or modifications they might have.

  Many of the committees responded to the request for comments. Those 
responses were generally supportive of the subcommittee's efforts and 
most contained only a few changes to the agency recommendations. Those 
changes were primarily requests by committees to retain reports under 
their jurisdiction because the information contained in the report is 
of use to the committee or, in some cases, of use to outside 
organizations. We adjusted the master list of eliminations and 
modifications based on those committee comments. Subcommittee staff 
then worked with the Senate legislative counsel's office to check 
statutory references to make sure we are addressing the correct 
provisions in law.
  Senator Cohen and I introduced S. 2156 on May 25, 1994. As 
introduced, the bill contained nearly 300 recommendations for 
eliminations or modifications. Senators Glenn, Roth, Stevens, and 
McCain cosponsored that bill.
  Shortly after the introduction of S. 2156, Senator Cohen and I again 
wrote to all the committees and asked for comments on the bill as 
introduced. This was a continuation of our effort to avoid the problems 
of the 1985 effort by including the committees of jurisdiction in each 
step of the development of S. 2156. Certain committees have responded 
to that second request and generally they have asked for few changes to 
the bill.
  While most of the recommendations we received from the agencies and 
included in the bill concern targeted, agency-specific reporting 
requirements, we did receive several recommendations regarding 
governmentwide reporting requirements. Again, we turned to the 
committees of jurisdiction for guidance on how or whether to enact 
these governmentwide agency recommendations. A number of these 
recommendations concerned reporting requirements that fall under 
various financial management statutes such as the Chief Financial 
Officers Act. Our bill does not address these particular 
recommendations due to the proposal contained in H.R. 3400 and other 
legislation to allow the administration to set up a pilot program aimed 
at streamlining the reporting and other requirements contained in these 
laws.
  We are in the process of reviewing other governmentwide reporting 
requirements to see if some changes can be made. For
 instance, there were several recommendations to change inspector 
general [IG] reports from semiannual to annual. From our initial 
discussions with the IG community and the relevant committee staff it 
seems that it might be possible to make this shift without jeopardizing 
the oversight responsibilities of the IG's. We will continue to discuss 
this recommendation to see if we can't achieve some change. Another 
issue that we will be looking at is creating thresholds for 
governmentwide reporting requirements. We received several 
recommendations from smaller agencies that talked of the burden of 
complying with certain governmentwide reporting requirements that have 
no relevance to their small agency.

  Every reporting requirement takes away resources that could be used 
elsewhere in the agency. Sometimes the burden is slight--as low as a 
few hundred dollars. Sometimes the burden is great--as high as a few 
million dollars. Enactment of this legislation will save time and 
money.
  This legislation gets at those reports that no one uses. These are 
the reports that come into our offices and sit in staff in-boxes for 
weeks, maybe months, until they are either rerouted to someone else or 
filed in that popular circular file drawer. On several occasions in the 
process of drafting this legislation, agencies told us that, for 
whatever reason, they hadn't been doing or had never done the reporting 
requirement they were now seeking to eliminate. Apparently no one had 
noticed the agency's failure to report or, if they did, no one 
complained. We have taken care to be aggressive in identifying reports, 
but deferential to the committees with substantive responsibility that 
may use these reports.
  This amendment, which is the same as S. 2156 with a few changes, is a 
bipartisan effort. It was unanimously reported out of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee by voice vote on August 2, 1994. We tried to get it 
to the floor last 
 [[Page S3549]] year, but were unable to do so. I am pleased that the 
Senate will act on this legislation today to move the Federal Report 
Elminiation and Modification Act of 1995 one step closer to becoming 
law. In today's day and age, we need all the resources we can get. The 
longer the reporting requirements contained in this bill stay on the 
books, the more resources are unnecessarily spent to comply. I thank 
Senator Cohen and his staff for their assistance in developing and 
moving this bill through the legislative process. I also want to take 
this opportunity to thank Tony Coe of the Senate legislative counsel's 
office for his fine work in drafting this legislation. I also want to 
thank Kay Dekuiper who was a member of the Oversight Subcommittee staff 
when this legislation was being developed and who did the bulk of the 
hard, tedious work putting this legislation together. She has since 
left the Senate to pursue her career elsewhere, but our appreciation 
for her efforts while she was here remain undiminished.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment has been cleared on the other 
side. I spoke to Senator Roth about this last night. He, again, was a 
supporter of this in the last Congress.
  This matter came up quite quickly last night, so we did not even have 
an opportunity to list him as a cosponsor. I am quite confident, 
however, from his quick comments to me last night on the floor, that he 
does support this amendment.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of the manager of this 
legislation, my understanding is that this is not a controversial 
amendment. I am basing that, at least partially, on the assurances of 
the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I also understand from the 
staff that this amendment is acceptable.
  So, at this juncture, there will be no objection to this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Again I thank the manager of the bill for his support.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 319) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 320

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 320.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following new section:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact 
     or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of 
     children who are hungry or homeless.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me start out with a definition for 
my colleagues. The definition of hunger. This amendment talks about 
hunger among children.

       The mental and physical condition that comes from not 
     eating enough food due to insufficient economic, family or 
     community resources.

  Mr. President, the way in which this is measured would be if there 
was a ``yes'' on at least five of the following eight questions.

       Does your household ever run out of money to buy food to 
     make a meal?
       Do you or other adult members of your household ever eat 
     less than you feel you should because there is not enough 
     money to buy food?
       Do you or other adult members of your household ever cut 
     the size of meals or skip meals because there is not enough 
     money for food?
       Do your children ever eat less than you feel they should 
     because there is not enough money for food?
       Do you ever cut the size of your children's meals or do 
     they ever skip meals because there is not enough money for 
     food?
       Do your children ever say they are hungry because there is 
     not enough food in the house?
       Do you ever rely on a limited number of foods to feed your 
     children because you are running out of money to buy food for 
     a meal?
       Do any of your children ever go to bed hungry because there 
     is not enough money to buy food?

  Mr. President, the Food Research Action Council Community Childhood 
Hunger Identification Project, estimated in 1991 that there are 5.5 
million children under 12 years of age who are hungry in the United 
States. Let me repeat that. There are 5.5 million children today, with 
existing programs of support, who are hungry in the United States of 
America.
  Mr. President, the U.S. Council of Mayors Status Report on Hunger and 
Homelessness in American Cities in 1994 found that 64 percent of the 
persons receiving food assistance were from families with children.
  I could go on with other definitions and would be pleased to do so as 
we move forward with this amendment.
  Homelessness. The U.S. Council of Mayors Status Report on Hunger and 
Homelessness in American Cities estimated that 26 percent of the 
requests at the emergency shelters were for children, homeless 
children.
  In 1988, the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, 
estimated that there were 100,000 children who are homeless each day--
100,000 children, Mr. President, homeless in the United States of 
America.
  Mr. President, on the very first day or the second day of this 
session, going back to the Congressional Accountability Act, I brought 
this amendment to the floor. I said that I feared that what was going 
to happen in the 104th Congress would go way beyond the goodness of 
people and that part of the safety net would be eviscerated, in 
particular, support for children in America. That was voted down. I 
could not get the Senate to go on record.
  Then, Mr. President, with the unfunded mandates bill, I came out and 
said, ``Why don't we at least do a child impact statement so we know 
what we are doing with these cuts, be they rescissions or proposed cuts 
in the budget and reconciliation bill?'' That was voted down.
  Then I brought a motion to refer which was a direction back to the 
Budget Committee as a part of the balanced budget amendment. At that 
time, I held up some headlines, and I said, ``I have been told by 
colleagues, `Senator Wellstone, there is no reason for you to come out 
here with scare tactics because we are not going to cut nutrition 
programs for children. We are not going to do anything that could lead 
to more hunger or homelessness among children.'''
  I came out here just last week with several headlines, one from 
February 23, ``House Panel Votes Social Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim 
Nutrition and Housing.'' Another one, ``House Panel Moves to Cut 
Federal Child Care, School Lunch Fund.''
  Mr. President, today, just by way of background, what is the headline 
in the Washington Post, Tuesday, March 7? It is a front-page story 
about a school in Fayette, MS. The headline is ``School Fearful That 
Johnny Can't Eat''--not ``School Fearful That `Johnny Can't Read'''--
``School Fearful That `Johnny Can't Eat.'''
  The Congress' school lunch debate worries some in rural Mississippi.

       I got a little boy come in here every morning and eats 
     everybody's food. Just licks the plate. And you know he's not 
     the only one,'' said Jeanette Reeves, eagle-eyed and dressed 
     in starched white, a cafeteria manager who doesn't have to 
     tell the children twice to eat all their lima beans. ``Many 
     of these children get their only meals right here at school. 
     Lord, it'll be cruel to change that.

  That, Mr. President, is a front-page story from the Washington Post. 
Now we are moving to the point where we are not worried about whether 
``Johnny can't read.'' We are worried about whether or not ``Johnny 
can't eat''--cuts in School Lunch Programs and School Breakfast 
Programs and Child Nutrition Programs.
  Mr. President, the same Washington Post piece, page A-4, headline: 
``House Panel Votes to Curtail Program for Disabled Children.''
   [[Page S3550]] Mr. President, I think we have just plain run out of 
excuses here on the Senate side.
  Let me just give a little bit more context. Last week we had charts 
out on the importance of the debt and the annual budget deficits. I 
have brought some charts out about the importance of children in 
America.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article by Bob Herbert, ``Inflicting Pain on Children,'' in a New 
York Times op-ed piece, Saturday, February 25.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 25, 1995]

                      Inflicting Pain on Children

                            (By Bob Herbert)


  the helpless are taking the brunt of the Republicans' attack on our 
                             social system

       The Republican jihad against the poor, the young and the 
     helpless rolls on. So far no legislative assault has been too 
     cruel, no budget cut too loathsome for the party that took 
     control of Congress at the beginning of the year and has 
     spent all its time since then stomping on the last dying 
     embers of idealism and compassion in government.
       This week Republicans in the House began approving measures 
     that would take food off the trays of hungry school children 
     and out of the mouths of needy infants. With reckless 
     disregard for the human toll that is sure to follow, they 
     have also aimed their newly powerful budget-reducing weapons 
     at programs that provide aid to handicapped youngsters, that 
     support foster care and adoption,that fight drug abuse in 
     schools and that provide summer jobs for needy youths.
       They have also targeted programs that provide fuel oil to 
     the poor and assistance to homeless veterans. And they have 
     given the back of their hand to President Clinton's national 
     service corps.
       The United States has entered a nightmare period in which 
     the overwhelming might of the Federal Government is being 
     used to deliberately inflict harm on the least powerful 
     people in the nation. The attacks on children have been the 
     worst. If the anti-child legislation that is moving with such 
     dispatch through the House actually becomes law, ``the 
     results will be cataclysmic,'' according to James Weill, 
     general counsel to the Children's Defense Fund.
       Mr. Weill said: ``The Republican leadership has targeted 
     children for almost all of the pain. They've cut, I think, $7 
     billion out of the child nutrition programs, and that's not 
     even counting food stamps, which they haven't done yet.
       ``Foster care and adoption have been cut by $4 billion over 
     five years. They've cut Aid to Families with Dependent 
     Children, and they're eliminating most of the entitlements as 
     they go along. They're just smashing their way through all of 
     the children's programs. To me, this so-called revolution is 
     more like a massacre of the innocents.''
       President Clinton denounced the cuts and accused the G.O.P. 
     majority in Congress of ``making war on children.'' At a 
     press conference yesterday in Ottawa, Canada, Mr. Clinton 
     said: ``What they want to do is make war on the kids of this 
     country to pay for the capital gains tax cut. That's what's 
     going on.''
       There is a breathless, frenzied quality to the Republican 
     assault, as if the party leaders recognize that they must get 
     their work done fast--while the Democrats are still in a 
     post-election stupor, and before the public at large becomes 
     aware of the extremes of suffering and social devastation 
     that are in the works.
       ``This agenda is too harsh,'' said Senator Paul Wellstone, 
     a Democrat from Minnesota. ``I realize that the Republicans 
     won the election, but these measures are too extreme, too 
     mean-spirited. They go beyond what the goodness of the people 
     in this country would permit. Most Americans do not want to 
     see vulnerable people hurt, especially children.''
       Mr. Wellstone has irritated some of his Republican 
     colleagues by frequently offering a legislative amendment 
     that says the Senate ``will not enact any legislation that 
     will increase the number of children who are hungry or 
     homeless.'' Each time it is offered, the amendment is 
     defeated.
       The Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, dismissed the 
     Wellstone amendment as an ``extraneous'' measure designed 
     solely to make Republicans ``look heartless and cold.'' No 
     doubt. But Senator Wellstone is right on target when he says 
     that the Republican legislative strategy was carefully 
     designed to hurt the people ``who aren't the big players, who 
     aren't the heavy hitters, who don't make big contributions, 
     who don't have lobbyists, who don't have clout.''
       If anything is funny in this dismal period, it's that the 
     Republicans are touchy about being called heartless and cold. 
     That's a riot. Has anyone listened to Newt Gingrich lately? 
     To Dick Armey? To Phil Gramm? This is the coldest crew to 
     come down the pike since the Ice Age.
       An indication of just how cold and heartless the 
     Republicans have become is the startling fact that Mr. Dole, 
     of all people, is starting to look a little warm and fuzzy.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I quote from that article:

       The Republican jihad against the poor, the young and the 
     helpless rolls on. So far no legislative assault has been too 
     cruel, no budget cut too loathsome for the party that took 
     control of Congress at the beginning of the year and has 
     spent all its time since then stomping on the last dying 
     embers of idealism and compassion in government.
       This week Republicans in the House began approving measures 
     that would take food off the trays of hungry schoolchildren 
     and out of the mouths of needy infants. With reckless 
     disregard for the human toll that is sure to follow, they 
     have also aimed their newly powerful budget-reducing weapons 
     at programs that provide aid to handicapped youngsters, that 
     support foster care and adoption, that fight drug abuse in 
     schools and that provide summer jobs for needy youths.

  Mr. President, 1 day in the life of American children: 636 babies are 
born to women who had late or no prenatal care. One day in the life of 
American children: 801 babies are born at low birthweight; by the way, 
to many women who never had any proper nutrition, and we now have 
proposed cuts in the Women, Infants, and Children Program. One day in 
the life of American children: 1,234 children run away from their 
homes. One day in the life of American children: 2,255 teenagers drop 
out of school each school day. One day in the life of American 
children: 2,868 babies are born into poverty. One day in the life of 
American children: 7,945 children are reported abused or neglected. One 
day in the life of American children: 100,000 children are homeless. 
One day in the life of American children: Three children die from child 
abuse. One day in the life of American children: 9 children are 
murdered; 13 children die from guns; 27 children--a classroomful--die 
from poverty; 63 babies die before they are 1 month old--63 babies die 
before they are 1 month old; and 101 babies die before their 1st 
birthday.
  Mr. President, it is just time for the U.S. Senate to go on record. 
Let me just make it clear again what this amendment does. This 
amendment on the paperwork reduction bill is just a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment. We are not going to do anything that creates more hunger or 
homelessness among children. There is no excuse not to go on record. 
The U.S. Senate needs to take this position.
  Mr. President, a little bit more in context, I have a report: 
``Unshared Sacrifice; The House of Representatives' Shameful Assault on 
America's Children,'' March 1995, the Children's Defense Fund, that I 
ask be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the report was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

             [From the Children's Defense Fund, March 1995]

 Unshared Sacrifice--The House of Representatives' Shameful Assault on 
                           America's Children


                              introduction

       In a ``revolution'' that so far has spared just about 
     everyone else, the House leadership and key committee 
     majorities have targeted America's children for the earliest, 
     broadest, and by far the deepest pain in budget cuts, program 
     restructuring, and rescissions. In less than two weeks key 
     committees and subcommittees have voted to cut $40 billion 
     from crucial child survival programs, and to end the federal 
     safety net for children and their families. This is a wholly 
     unshared sacrifice: the House seems to be postponing for a 
     later day, if ever, any contemplation of major cuts for other 
     constituencies. Savings from savage cuts in programs for 
     needy and helpless children would be used to fund a new and 
     unnecessary defense build-up; to pay for a capital gains tax 
     cut of which 71 percent goes to the richest 1 percent of 
     Americans; and to reduce a tax on the richest 13 percent of 
     the elderly by $56 billion (over 10 years) when that tax goes 
     to pay part of Medicare's cost.
       While the House majority's welfare plan has gotten most 
     media attention, that plan's unprecedented savaging of 
     children is merely symptomatic of a broad-gauged assault on 
     hungry children's nutrition programs, disabled children's 
     disability assistance, preschool children's child care and 
     child development centers, unemployed youths' summer jobs, 
     sick children's medical care, and abused children's foster 
     care and hope for adoptive families. Block grants, 
     rescissions, and consolidations are being used in a multi-
     front attack on children's services. Not even proven money-
     saving programs like Head Start have been spared. And in the 
     midst of this series of brutal reductions, the most severe 
     have been reserved for the most vulnerable children--those 
     who are disabled or in foster care.
       Based on data from the Congressional Budget Office, the 
     Department of Health and 
      [[Page S3551]] Human Services and the Department of 
     Agriculture, and analysis of congressional numbers by the 
     Children's Defense Fund, $40 billion in core safety net 
     program cuts were adopted in the past two weeks that would 
     force out of these programs millions of the children eligible 
     under current rules (see chart, next page).
       These numbers assume that states would reduce spending by 
     the amount of federal reductions, and do so by eliminating 
     eligible children from the program rather than reducing 
     benefits across-the-board. In some programs like AFDC and 
     SSI, the strategy of dropping children is virtually dictated 
     by the proposed legislation. In others, it is possible for 
     states to spread out the cuts and reduce benefits for more 
     children, but completely deny benefits to fewer. In that 
     case, many more children would be hurt, but the damage to 
     each would be a bit less. In either instance, the pain will 
     be massive.
       The numbers in this report actually understate the real 
     depth of the cuts, since they assume there is no recession 
     driving up the number of children needing help; assume there 
     are no transfers from the new block grants to other programs 
     (as is allowed with some of the funds); assume that there are 
     not larger cuts in state funds by states that would be freed 
     from any matching requirements; and do not account for how 
     cuts in one area (such as AFDC) will drive up the need in 
     other areas (such as foster care). Moreover, the AFDC losses 
     in 2000 disguise the full impact of the House welfare plan: 3 
     million to 5 million children could lose AFDC when that plan 
     is fully phased in.

                                             THE UNSHARED SACRIFICE                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Percentage of
                                                                                                   all eligible 
                                            Dollars cut over   Dollars cut in    Children losing   children who 
                                                 5 years       the fifth year    benefits in the    would lose  
                                                                   (2000)           year 2000       benefits in 
                                                                                                   the year 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFDC......................................  $12.8 billion...  $3.7 billion....  1.7 million (3-5            18.1
                                                                                 million in                     
                                                                                 later years).                  
SSI for children..........................  $12.1 billion...  $5.5 billion....  516,000.........            67.0
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance.......  $5.5 billion....  $1.7 billion....  111,000.........            26.0
School Lunches............................  $2 billion......  $510 million....  2.22 million....             8.8
Child Care................................  $2.5 billion....  $612 million....  378,000.........            24.0
Child and Adult Care Food Program.........  $4.6 billion....  $1.1 billion....  1,048,000.......            50.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This assault on America's children is also an assault on 
     America's future. The millions of infants and toddlers who 
     would be denied food necessary for their physical and 
     intellectual development in the years ahead are the ones 
     America will want to be computer programmers in 2017. The 
     millions of five-year-olds who would be denied any cash aid 
     for housing, food, or clothing are the ones we will want to 
     be learning in college or apprenticing in industry in 2010. 
     The thousands of battered 10-year-olds denied counseling and 
     foster care and adoptive homes are the ones we will want not 
     to be violent 16-year-olds in 2001. By ravaging the 
     childhoods of millions of American children, the House 
     simultaneously will be pillaging America's economic and 
     democratic future.
       The assault on children is unique in its size and severity. 
     No other group, except for legal aliens, has been touched by 
     more than a small fraction of the cuts aimed at children. No 
     massively subsidized corporation has yet to see a dime 
     threatened. (In fact, a handful of big
      businesses got a $1 billion gift from higher prices on 
     infant formula--and less formula purchased--when the House 
     Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities voted 
     down competitive bidding in the WIC program, a step USDA 
     says will cause ``increased malnutrition, growth stunting, 
     and iron deficiency anemia.'') No farmer has had his crop 
     subsidies cut. No military or civil service retiree--or 
     member of Congress--has seen his pay or health insurance 
     or retirement benefits cut. Defense contractors have been 
     given a gift of new and higher spending. Programs for poor 
     families have faced extra cuts in order to spare 
     traditional ``pork'' like visitors' centers or NRA-
     sponsored efforts to teach school children to shoot guns.
       The House majority has put almost all its cost-cutting 
     effort into slashing and burning its way through programs for 
     children and the parents, grandparents, foster parents, and 
     others who are struggling to care for them.
       This is not what America voted for last November. This is 
     not what Americans want. This is not what America needs. 
     Nevertheless, in just 10 days in February, House committees 
     voted to slash these basic supports:
       Food for children. The House Economic and Educational 
     Opportunities Committee voted to take away the guarantee that 
     low-income children can get free or reduced-price school 
     lunches and breakfasts. The plan indiscriminately lumps these 
     school-based programs together and cuts them by $2 billion 
     over five years. In a separate block grant, the committee 
     ended the guarantee of food for children in Head Start and 
     child care centers through the Child and Adult Care Food 
     Program and lumped this with the WIC program of food for poor 
     pregnant women and infants, the summer food program, and food 
     for the homeless, and cut the package by $5 billion over five 
     years. Cutting fat? Hardly. Experts estimate that hundreds of 
     millions fewer meals would be served to needy children in the 
     year 2000, thanks to the cut. And 60,000 Head Start 
     placements are likely to end because programs will have to 
     spend the Head Start money on food to replace the child care 
     food program cut for hundreds of thousands of children. 
     Sharing the pain? Hardly. No other food program has yet been 
     cut, whether the cafeteria for members of the House of 
     Representatives or the programs that feed the elderly. House 
     Speaker Gingrich has promised, as well as he should, not to 
     cut food programs for the elderly. But it is perverse to 
     treat food for seniors as deserving of protection but food 
     for children as a waste of national resources. We can afford 
     to feed both.
       Income support for children. The House Ways and Means 
     Committee's Human Resources subcommittee voted to take away 
     the guarantee that poor children can get AFDC; voted to order 
     states to deny throughout childhood any aid to children born 
     out of wedlock to young mothers (even though the mother may 
     eventually requalify for aid); and voted to limit to five 
     years the receipt of welfare for children who might still 
     qualify despite the other rule changes. In the year 2000, 
     $3.7 billion will be taken away from poor children. Is this 
     aimed at parents and personal responsibility? Not really. The 
     plan cuts off children even when parents can get benefits, 
     cuts off families even when they have been working and 
     complying with all rules, and tells a child who has been 
     living with his low-income, elderly grandparents since birth 
     that she'll get no help after the age of five. Cutting fat? 
     No! In the year 2000, 1.7 million children who by definition 
     do not have enough for food or shelter are projected to lose 
     AFDC. Even more will lose help if states cut back further or 
     divert state and federal AFDC funds to other purposes. 
     Sharing the pain? Hardly.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will just read a couple of operative paragraphs.

       In a ``revolution'' that so far has spared just about 
     everyone else, the House leadership and key committee 
     majorities have targeted America's children for the earliest, 
     broadest, and by far the deepest pain in budget cuts, program 
     restructuring, and rescissions. In less than two weeks key 
     committees and subcommittees have voted to cut $40 billion 
     from crucial child survival programs, and to end the federal 
     safety net for children and their families. This is a wholly 
     unshared sacrifice: the House seems to be postponing for a 
     later day, if ever, any contemplation of major cuts for other 
     constituencies. Savings from savage cuts in program for needy 
     and helpless children would be used to fund a new and 
     unnecessary defense build-up; to pay for a capital gains tax 
     cut of which 71 percent goes to the richest 1 percent of 
     Americans; and to reduce a tax on the richest 13 percent of 
     the elderly by $56 billion (over 10 years) when that tax goes 
     to pay part of Medicare's cost.

  Mr. President, when I go to gatherings of senior citizens, they list 
children and their grandchildren right at the top of their concerns. We 
talk about their concerns about block granting congregate dining and 
Meals on Wheels, which older Americans made sure did not happen in the 
House. The first thing they say to me is, ``Senator, we also want to 
make sure that the school lunch program is not eliminated or cut back. 
We want to make sure that there are not cuts in childhood nutrition 
programs.''
  Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that we do not have, in this 
Contract With America, we have not seen in any of these rescissions, we 
have not seen in any of the action on the House side, one word about 
oil company subsidies being cut, one word about coal company subsidies 
being cut, one word about pharmaceutical company subsidies being cut, 
one word about the privileged, about the powerful, about Pentagon 
contractors having to sacrifice at all.
  Instead, those citizens who are being asked to sacrifice and tighten 
their belts are the very citizens who cannot--the children in this 
country. I suggest today that there is a reason for that. They are the 
citizens who are not the heavy hitters. They are the citizens who are 
not the well connected. They are the citizens who do not have all the 
 [[Page S3552]] lobbyists. They are the citizens with the least amount 
of political power. I do not think we should be making decisions on 
that basis.
  How interesting it is, Mr. President, that we are willing to cut free 
lunches for children, but we are not willing to ban gifts and cut free 
lunches for Senators and Representatives. Let me repeat that once 
again: How interesting it is that in the U.S. Congress, on the House 
side, there is a willingness to cut free lunches for hungry children, 
but no commitment to have a gift ban and end free lunches for 
Representatives and Senators. That small example tells a large story 
about what is going on here right now in the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. President, people voted for change. But it always begged the 
question, What kind of change? With these cuts in nutrition programs, 
now we have to have fear, in the schools of Ohio, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, and all across the land, not that Johnny cannot read, but 
that Johnny cannot eat. These cuts go beyond the goodness of people in 
this country.
  This is not what people voted for. And when we see the rescissions 
coming over, and some of these block grants and mean-spirited cutbacks 
in child nutrition programs, and mean-spirited cuts in other children's 
programs that will lead to more homeless, all I ask my colleagues in 
the U.S. Senate to do today is to go on record with a mild sense-of-
the-Senate resolution that we will not do anything that will increase 
more hunger or homelessness among children.
  Now, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues--because I have had this 
amendment on the floor over and over again--that I do not think they 
can hide any longer. First, at the beginning of the session, it was all 
about prerogative, not on the Congressional Accountability Act.
  I also heard about this type of rationale and even read in the New 
York Times Magazine about this the other day in relation to gift ban. 
No, we do not want to do that because we want to show that we are in 
control. Or we do not want to give a Senator ink. I did not think we 
made decisions on that basis, but the gift ban amendment was voted 
down. This amendment was voted down also. Then I brought it up again on 
unfunded mandates--it was voted down. Then I brought it up as just a 
motion to refer to the Budget Committee, not as an amendment to the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Senator Hatch was on 
the floor, a Senator whom I deeply respect, and he said, ``Look, 
Senator Wellstone, I really think that this is based upon your 
opposition to the balanced budget amendment, and these amendments are 
not going to be amendments we will accept.'' Fine.
  But now we have a bill that is sailing through the Senate. There is 
tremendous support for it. I support it. And all I am doing, since this 
bill is out here, is asking for a sense of the Senate. We see the front 
page stories; we hear it on the radio; we see it on television. 
Sometimes, I think, Mr. President, if I had time, I would retrace the 
hunger tour that Senator Robert Kennedy took. I really would. I almost 
feel as though Senators need to see it themselves.
  All I am saying is, the writing is on the wall. We see where the deep 
cuts are. We see what its effects on children are going to be. 
Everybody agrees that these programs are harsh, that these programs 
will have a very serious impact on children, the most vulnerable of our 
citizens, the poor children of America.
  I am saying, because all eyes are on the Senate to put a stop to 
this, today is the day. Let Members go on record. We can do this on a 
nonpartisan basis. We should have Democrats and Republicans in a 
resounding vote go on record that we will not do anything to create 
more hunger or homelessness among children. Let Members agree on that. 
Let Members agree when it comes to deficit reduction, there will be a 
standard of fairness. Let Members agree we will represent children in 
America and we will represent them well. Let Members agree this is a 
part of the priorities of what we stand for. Let Members put to rest 
the fears that so many people have in this country that what is 
happening right now in the Congress is a juggernaut that is mean 
spirited, that will hurt so many children in the country.
  We, today, can go on record saying we are not going to do that. That 
is what I ask my colleagues to do.
  Mr. President, I do not really understand. One of the things that has 
been interesting to me is the silence on the other side of the aisle. 
We know rescissions are coming over here. We know the kind of cuts that 
have already taken place in committee and on the floor in the House of 
Representatives. So there is not one Senator who can look me in the eye 
and say any longer, ``Senator Wellstone, you're crying Chicken 
Little.'' That is what some of my colleagues had to say to me at the 
beginning of the session.
  But now the evidence is irrefutable and irreducible. We know the 
proposed cuts. We know what is coming over here. I do not think there 
is one Senator who can come out on the floor and say to me today ``You 
are wrong, we don't need to go on record with this statement, because 
no one will do this to children in America.'' The evidence is clear it 
is being done. Nor are there any excuses any longer about it being the 
beginning of the session or about it being the constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget. It is all very clear.
  One more time, Mr. President:

       It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not 
     enact or adopt any legislation that will increase the number 
     of children who are hungry or homeless.

  Is that too much to ask of my colleagues?
  Moments in America for children, a Children's Defense Fund study last 
year:
  Every 5 seconds of the school day a student drops out of public 
school;
  Every 30 seconds a baby is born into poverty;
  Every 2 minutes a baby is born at low birthweight;
  Every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had late or no 
prenatal care;
  Every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol-related crime;
  Every 7 minutes a child is arrested for a drug crime;
  Every 2 hours a child is murdered;
  Every 4 hours a child commits suicide.
  Mr. President, we cannot savage children in America today. It is 
unconscionable, as I look at what the House of Representatives is doing 
right now, that we in the U.S. Congress seem to be willing to cut free 
lunches for poor children in America, but we have not yet passed a gift 
ban that would end free lunches for Representatives and Senators. Today 
I ask the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, to go on 
record, ``It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact or 
adopt any legislation that would increase the number of children who 
are hungry or homeless.''
  How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Minnesota has 
23 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have no request for time on this side. We 
are prepared to yield our time back if the Senator from Minnesota is 
ready to conclude the debate.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I do, and while my colleague is 
on the floor, I would like to get his attention just for a moment. I 
will be pleased to do so, and I understand the votes will all take 
place after our caucus meetings this afternoon.
  I have a lot of respect for the whip. I think we have a good 
friendship, agree or disagree, on all issues. But I want my colleague 
to know why I continue to bring this amendment to the floor. It 
certainly is not for ink because there has not been a lot of coverage 
for this amendment.
  I said at the beginning I was going to do it, and every day as I read 
the papers and hear what is happening on the House side, I realize that 
it is really going to be up to the Senate, Republicans and Democrats 
alike, in a careful nonpartisan way to take certain action that I think 
90 percent of the people in the country want us to take.
  Part of that action is to certainly not, for example, cut nutrition 
programs for children. I refer the Senator from Mississippi to this 
article today regarding Fayette, MS, and there were 
 [[Page S3553]] two parts to this. There are wonderful interviews with 
some of the parents and some of the women who work at the cafeteria and 
teachers who work with children about the tremendous fear.
  The headline is ``School Fearful That `Johnny Can't Eat','' not 
``Johnny Can't Read.''
  Congress' school lunch debate worries some in rural Mississippi. The 
Senator may have been off the floor. It starts out with this quote. I 
find this quote to be, at a personal level--it moves me and really 
worries me.

       ``I got a little boy come in here every morning and eats 
     everybody's food. Just licks the plate. And you know he's not 
     the only one,'' said Jeanette Reeves, eagle-eyed and dressed 
     in starched white, a cafeteria manager who doesn't have to 
     tell the children twice to eat all their lima beans. ``Many 
     of these children get their only meals right here at school. 
     Lord, it'll be cruel to change that.''

  And then there are some teachers, I say to my colleague from 
Mississippi. This is in Fayette, MS, and they say, ``Listen, these 
children just cannot learn, if they are not going to have at least one 
good meal a day, they can't learn, they can't do well in school.''
  Mr. President, we all say we are for the children in America. As I 
have said on the floor before, I think that includes all God's 
children, not just our children, and that includes the children that 
are poor and, unfortunately, a sizable percentage of children in 
America are poor.
  I say to my colleague from Mississippi, if there is no further 
debate, I would be pleased to yield back the remainder of my time, but 
I am hoping that in the absence of debate today that finally the Senate 
is willing to go on record:

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not enact 
     or adopt any legislation that will increase the number of 
     children who are hungry or homeless.

  I do not think there should be one Senator who should have a problem 
voting for this. I think it is time we go on record as an institution. 
If there is no debate, I take that silence as consent, and I yield back 
the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield back the remainder 
of time, but first, since my State has been referred to several times--
that is normal, if you want to make a case, it has been the practice 
around here for 20 years to attack Mississippi.
  Frankly, we do not appreciate that. But also I just want to 
emphasize, there is a lot of misinformation out here. What we would 
like to do is to take nutrition programs, a lot of other programs, 
reform them, get the fraud out of them where it exists--and it may not 
be the case in the nutrition program--cut back on administration costs 
because there is a lot of waste and money going to the administration 
of these programs instead of getting to children, food for children, 
nutrition for children.
  One of the points that people in Washington seem to miss is----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield? Can I ask the Senator before 
he moves to table if I could have a couple minutes to respond?
  Mr. LOTT. I am sure we can work that out.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LOTT. I just ask the Senators here, is there anybody among us who 
would not like to see us find some savings in programs, maybe actually 
get more money to the children? What I understand is being proposed in 
the House of Representatives actually with the block grants is that you 
would get more money actually going for food to the children by cutting 
out the bureaucracy and the redtape.
  It seems to me like that is a good idea: More flexibility for the 
States, a better way, perhaps, being found to administer these 
programs. The Governors believe that can happen--the Governor of my 
State, the Governor of Michigan.
  So what we are talking about is a better program, a better deal that 
will help more children. What we have been doing is we are feeding 
bureaucrats. How about if we feed the children instead?
  What everybody is saying is we cannot change anything. ``Oh, no, 
don't touch this one, don't touch that one.'' For 40 years this stuff 
has been building up. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, with all kinds of 
waste. It is time that we find a way to improve some of these programs. 
We believe we can do that. That is all we are seeking with these 
nutrition programs. There is a tremendous amount of misinformation out 
there on this and other programs.
  Last week we had debate on the balanced budget amendment. They said, 
``Oh, we don't need this. Let's just go and find a way to reduce the 
deficit.'' And then the list begins: ``Oh, but, you can't touch this 
program, you can't even improve it, you can't limit the rate of 
increase in spending on programs.''
  That is all we are talking about. Most of these programs we are not 
talking about cutting a nickel; we are talking about controlling the 
rate of growth. So here they come, the same crowd we heard in the 
eighties: ``Oh, don't cut this one, don't cut that one, don't cut the 
Low Income Energy Assistance Program,'' that gives $19 million for air 
conditioning in the State of Florida, and I am sure a lot of money for 
air conditioning in my State.
  We all have our little program and say, ``Don't touch this one.'' You 
cannot have it both ways. You cannot find ways to begin to control 
spending and reduce the deficit without looking at every program, every 
agency, every department and seeing if we cannot do a better job. If we 
say do not touch any program, we will never get anything done.
  I did not want to start a full debate here, but I had to at least get 
that on the record. I think what we are talking about is better 
programs, less bureaucracy, and more funds for people who really need 
the help.
  Does the Senator wish to use additional time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if I might just ask for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Since the Senator yielded back his time, I will yield back 
5 minutes from our time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
  Let me just be really clear about, first of all, what this vote is 
on. I do take exception to some of what my colleague had to say. But I 
am not even debating today whether or not some of what has been 
proposed in block grants will work better or not. I take what the 
Senator has said to be said in good faith.
  What this amendment says is the Senate goes on record that we will 
not enact or adopt any legislation which will increase the number of 
children hungry or homeless.
  So the Senator from Mississippi would agree with me on that. He has 
not proposed that we do make cuts that would increase hunger and 
homelessness.
  This does not cast judgment on any particular proposal. Given what is 
moving through and given some of the discussion, let us go on record 
that we are not going to do anything that would do that. I should think 
the Senator would agree. That is my first point. To vote for this means 
that Senators are willing to go on record saying certainly one thing 
that is important to us is not to increase any hunger or homelessness 
among children. That is all this says. That is point one.
  Point two--and I say this with some sense of sadness to my 
colleague--actually there is a considerable amount of empirical data 
about the cuts. I have before me a Department of Agriculture study, and 
actually there are many other studies that are now coming out about the 
cuts that are being proposed, cuts I say to my colleague, in child 
nutrition programs State by State. Alabama, school-age children, fiscal 
year 1996, $1,972,000; preschool children, $15,098,000; Mississippi--
but I will get to Minnesota so you do not think it is just 
Mississippi--$2,421,000 for school-age children and $14 million cuts 
for preschool children in nutrition programs. In my State of Minnesota, 
cuts of $1,627,000 for school-age children and $15,189,000 for 
preschool children.
  That is why I am worried about this, I say to my colleague from 
Mississippi. So, first, there is no one any longer who is really 
arguing we are not facing deep cuts that will have a harmful effect on 
children. But, even if I was to agree with what my colleague just said, 
that is not what this amendment is about. We should together vote for 
 [[Page S3554]] this because then we make it clear that regardless of 
our disagreement about specific policies, one thing we are in agreement 
on is that the Senate as an institution certainly is not going to take 
any action that would increase hunger or homelessness among children. I 
do not know how my colleagues can continue to vote against this.
  Finally, I would like to say this by way of an apology because I 
agree with my colleague from Mississippi about this. I think this is a 
powerful story, but in no way, shape or form did I intend to pick on 
Mississippi. I believe that one of the things we do over and over again 
is that we look everywhere but home. It is so easy for those of us in 
Pennsylvania or Minnesota to focus on Mississippi, and I fully 
understand the sentiment of my colleague from Mississippi. 
Unfortunately, Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I can point to 
children that are struggling in Minnesota. I am sure that the Presiding 
Officer can in Pennsylvania. The kind of issues that concern me are all 
across the United States of America, not just in the State of 
Mississippi, which, indeed, is a wonderful State. But this is a 
wonderful story because it puts faces, it puts real people, it puts 
real children behind all the statistics, and that is why I use this as 
an example.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I really hope I 
will have support from colleagues on this.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield back the remainder of our time, and I move to table 
the amendment. 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.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, does the Chair have business pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] is recognized to offer an amendment on which 
there shall be 90 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, yesterday, I had reserved time for 
another slot and had considered an amendment, which is the gift ban 
amendment, and again the connection I make over and over again today, 
it just strikes me as being more than ironic; I think it is 
unconscionable that, apparently, as I look at what the House of 
Representatives is doing right now, we are willing to cut free lunches 
for children but we are not willing to pass a gift ban that ends free 
lunches for Senators and Representatives.
  However, Mr. President, while I think there has to be action on this, 
I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senator Levin from 
Michigan, Senator Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, and certainly the 
majority leader, who has gone on record in favor of this. So this 
amendment will be in the Chamber, though not today, and we will have a 
vote on it. I will not propose this amendment today.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. I would like to say to the Senator from Minnesota and 
remind all of our colleagues that the majority leader, Senator Dole, 
has indicated this issue will be addressed. He is working on 
legislation in the gift ban area, and I do expect that we will have a 
vote in this area in the not too distant future. So rest assured, we 
are going to take up this issue.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi, 
and I would just say I appreciate that. Rest assured, I will be out in 
the Chamber with other colleagues with this amendment and keep pushing 
this, and hopefully we will all do this together.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time I had the right to offer an 
amendment. I do not intend to offer the amendment at this time and 
withdraw that right.


                           the oregon option

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, recently, the State of Oregon and 
several Federal agencies signed a memorandum of understanding to create 
a new partnership which will test unique methods of delivering 
Government services in a better and more efficient manner. When this 
revolutionary partnership, called the Oregon option, is fully 
implemented, Federal grants or transfers to State and local governments 
in Oregon will be based on results rather than compliance with 
procedures.
  I believe that this project has the potential to vastly improve 
intergovernmental service delivery in my State and may well prove to be 
a national model for future governmental partnerships. For this reason, 
I am pleased the managers of the pending legislation, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, have included in their bill my sense-of-the-
Senate resolution urging the Federal Government to continue to be an 
active partner in this effort.
  Mr. President, I would specifically like to thank Senators Roth and 
Glenn for their assistance and would also like to thank Senator Nunn 
for his help in including my amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of this important 
legislation, I am pleased that the Senate will soon pass the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995. I am a longtime supporter of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act which seeks to reduce the Federal paperwork burdens 
imposed on the public.
  I have been particularly concerned about the effects of the Federal 
regulatory burden on small businesses throughout my years in Congress. 
Americans spend billions of hours a year filling out forms, surveys, 
questionnaires, and other information requests for the Federal 
Government at a cost of several hundred billions dollars. Increasing 
paperwork burdens force small businesses to redirect scarce resources 
away from activities that might otherwise allow them to provide better 
services to their customers or provide additional jobs. America's small 
businesses are the backbone of our economy and, as such we need to 
ensure that they are not crippled by regulatory burdens that hinder 
their ability to compete in the increasingly competitive global 
marketplace.
  I am also pleased to cosponsor an amendment offered by Senator Levin 
to eliminate or modify over 200 statutory reporting requirements that 
have outlived their usefulness. This is an issue that Senator Levin and 
I have worked on for a number of years in our capacity as chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management. The Levin amendment is consistent 
with efforts by the administration and the Congress to reinvent 
Government and make it more efficient. It is based on a bill Senator 
Levin and I introduced last Congress which CBO estimated would reduce 
agencies' reporting costs by $5 to $10 million annually. The 
legislation was the product of more than a year's worth of discussions 
with Government agencies and congressional committees.
  Examples of the types of reports that the amendment will eliminate or 
modify include a provision to eliminate an annual Department of Energy 
reporting requirement on naval petroleum and oil shale reserves 
production. The same data included in this report is included in the 
naval petroleum reserves annual report. Another provision would modify 
the Department of Labor's annual report to include the Department's 
audited financial statements and, thereby, eliminate the need for a 
separate annual report for all money received and disbursed by the 
Department.
  The Levin amendment is consistent with the goals of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. It is intended to reduce the paperwork burdens placed on 
Federal agencies and streamline the information that flows from these 
agencies to the Congress.
  Mr. President, I would now like to make a few statements about the 
overall legislation. The bill before us contains provisions to maximize 
the use of information collected by the Federal Government and keep in 
place the 1980 act's goal of reducing the paperwork burdens imposed on 
the public through 
 [[Page S3555]] an annual governmentwide paperwork reduction goal of 5 
percent.
  It reauthorizes the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
[OIRA], within the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], which 
implements the act and requires each Federal agency to thoroughly 
review proposed paperwork requirements to make sure they are truly 
needed and have a practical utility. It also enhances public 
participation in reviewing paperwork requirements.
  The bill clarifies that the act applies to all Government-sponsored 
paperwork, eliminating any confusion over the coverage of so-called 
third party burdens--those imposed by one private party on another due 
to a Federal regulation--caused by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 
decision in Dole versus United Steelworkers of America. This decision 
created a loophole for agencies to avoid public comment and OMB review. 
Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles, who authorized the Paperwork Reduction Act 
when he was in the Senate, filed on amicus brief with the Supreme Court 
arguing that no such exemption for third party paperwork burdens where 
intended when the act was created. Unfortunately, the Court held that 
the plain meaning of the statute could not support such a finding.
  Finally, I am pleased that the Governmental Affairs Committee 
accepted an amendment I offered in committee to make changes to the 
information technology provisions of the bill and allow the opportunity 
for information technology reform later this Congress. This is an 
important issue that warrants separate legislative consideration. In 
closing, I want to commend Senators Roth, Glenn, and Nunn for their 
work in this area. The bill enjoys broad bipartisan support and I hope 
my colleagues will move expeditiously to vote on final passage.


                          ____________________