[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5087-S5091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SPENDING AND REVENUES

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me say that the 30 minutes has been 
reserved for Members of the freshman class to take some time, and that 
will be divided among several of us.
  We want to talk a little bit this morning about the future--the 
future for America, the future for Americans, and the future as it 
pertains to spending and spending limitations in this Government. More 
specifically, where will we be in the year 2000 if we continue to do as 
we have done over the past number of years? Where will we be at the 
beginning of the next millennium unless we make some changes in the 
direction that we are going?
  The question before us, I think, as Americans and American taxpayers 
and American citizens, is, unless we make some changes, unless we set 
some priorities for ourselves now and do something about spending, will 
we have any options at the year 2000? Will we be able to set priorities 
for ourselves or, in fact, will our priorities be set by the bond 
market? Will our priorities be set simply by the financial condition of 
this country? So that is what we want to talk about.
  There is nothing that can be more important to us than how we enter 
the new millennium with opportunities for people to be successful, with 
opportunities for people to earn a living for their families, and to 
have the American dream as we dreamed it in the past. And that is what 
we are talking about.
  We are talking about spending and what has happened to spending over 
the last number of years and, frankly, the momentum to continue 
spending as it has been. And if that does continue, then by the year 
2000, we will not have options. All of our money will be spent for 
Social Security, for interest on the debt, for defense.
  One indication of where we have been is that the interest on the debt 
as part of our budget has soared from $14 billion a year 25 years ago--
in 1970, $14 billion--to now $234 billion; on interest alone, $234 
billion, which is more than the Government spent in 1970.
  So this, it seems to me, is what we need to be prepared for. We need 
to take a look at where we are and where we are going. And we have a 
great opportunity to do that.
  Unfortunately, the administration is resisting change and is seeking 
to extend the programs that we have had over the last 25 years, the 
last 30 years, seeking to extend and fund programs like the welfare 
program, which has been a failure. The poverty program 
[[Page S5088]] has been a failure. There are more people in poverty now 
than there were when we began.
  So the choice is basically to continue what we have been doing and 
resist change or to take the opportunity to take a look at the things 
we are doing and really examine them.
  It seems to me it is an exciting opportunity in this Congress. It is 
an exciting opportunity for the House and the Senate to examine 
programs and say, ``Here's what we have been doing. How does it work? 
How does it impact the people that need it?'' To take a look at it and 
say, ``Are there better ways to deliver services?"
  No one is talking about discontinuing services. Nobody is talking 
about hungry children. The people who are for change, I submit, have 
equally as much compassion for people in need as those who resist 
change. We have a great opportunity to see: Is there a better way for 
us to deliver services?
  What we really ought to do is measure what we have been doing against 
the principles that we all agree on, and that is that welfare programs 
and Social Security programs ought to be designed to help get people 
off welfare, to help people get back into the marketplace, to get back 
into an opportunity for self-esteem and self-sustenance, to reduce the 
dependency that has developed in this country and give people the 
opportunity to have jobs and be in the workplace; to provide incentives 
not only for people to work and to take care of themselves and their 
families, but incentives for business to invest to provide those jobs.
  Now is a great opportunity for us to change some of the measurements 
of success, the measurement of welfare, not how many people you cover. 
The measurement of welfare is how many people you help to get off of 
welfare. And that is what we are talking about here.
  It is unfortunate, I think, that the White House has apparently 
determined their approach to the next election by fear tactics of 
saying each time we take a look at changing some program, that somehow 
everyone is going to be thrown out in the cold. That is not true. That 
is not true. We are looking for better ways to deliver services.
  I think it would be a shame, Mr. President, to pass up the 
opportunity that we have now. Americans voted for change in 1994, not 
for reckless change, but for fundamental change. They voted for fiscal 
responsibility.
  Let me show you this chart, just as an example of what we are doing. 
Everyone has to have a chart here. We do not want to be without a 
chart. In any event, this shows spending and revenues over time from 
1974 to 1980 to the year 2000. Look at the difference. All of this will 
be taken up in three categories and there will not be an opportunity 
for educational grants, there will not be an opportunity for training 
for work because there will not be money for that.
  Now we can make the changes. Now we can make changes to do it and 
that is what it is all about, Mr. President. That is why we are on the 
floor this morning.
  I want to share this time with a number of Senators who have worked 
very hard in this area.
  The Senator from Arizona worked in the House and has been the author 
of a number of bills to make some fundamental changes to move us in 
what I believe to be the right direction.
  I yield to the Senator from Arizona for 6 minutes.


               Consequences of Lack of Fiscal Discipline

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I think my 
colleague from Wyoming makes an excellent point that I would like to 
speak to, and that is the issue of the balanced budget, of getting rid 
of our Federal budget deficit and balancing the budget has more than an 
economic dimension to it. It is really a matter of the future of our 
children and grandchildren, it is a matter of right and wrong and what 
we ought to be doing as a society.
  Bill Bennett, who is the former Secretary of Education, testified 
before the Senate Budget Committee recently, and he said this:

       We have created a nanny state that takes too much from us 
     in order to do too much for us. This has created 
     inefficiency, sapped individual responsibility and intruded 
     on personal liberty.

  Mr. President, that, as much as the economic consequences of our lack 
of fiscal discipline, is what this debate about balancing the Federal 
budget is all about. The bigger the Government gets, the more taxes it 
needs. The more revenue it takes, the less American families are able 
to provide for themselves, and that brings dependency on the 
Government. And the cycle continues: More spending, more taxes, a 
weaker economy, and ultimately more dependency on the Government.
  The net result of that is a change in the personality of America, 
literally. Our welfare state has created a dependency by the people who 
have not found a way to get off welfare because of the kinds of 
incentives that have been built into the program over the years.
  One of the things that the Republicans in the House and the Senate 
are trying to do is to change the welfare state to end this cycle of 
dependency. It is more than an economic matter. We are literally trying 
to give people a hand up rather than a handout to end the dependency, 
to enable them to provide for themselves.
  The great debate in the House of Representatives in the next couple 
of days is whether we can modestly reduce some taxes at the same time 
that we are balancing the Federal budget. Of course, the answer is yes. 
If we have the discipline, we can both get to a balanced budget in 7 
years and make some modest changes in the Tax Code. Here is the reason 
why we need to do it.
  The chart behind us shows in the bars the level of Federal spending, 
and it shows a green line running in about 19, 19.5 percent of the 
gross national product which represents revenues from 1970 through the 
year 2030.
  We have had several tax rate increases during that period of time. 
Has it produced more revenue? No. The economy adjusts. When tax rates 
go up, people adjust their behavior accordingly. Likewise, when we have 
reduced taxes, has it reduced revenues to the Federal Treasury? No. As 
a percent of the gross national product, as you can see on that green 
line, revenues remain constant. Now that is in a growing economy.
  So despite the fact that the economy is growing larger, revenues to 
the Treasury are keeping up when you reduce taxes, and that is one of 
the reasons that we want to reduce the taxes, both on capital gains so 
that people can sell assets that they have been holding but do not want 
to pay 28 percent tax on the profit they make on that--profit which is 
largely generated by inflation, by the way, so it is not real profit at 
all--and why we are interested in the $500 tax credit for children. 
That helps to restore the balance in who does the spending.
  One of our colleagues was here yesterday talking about cuts in 
education, and I made the point that we are not talking about cuts in 
spending on education. What we are talking about is who does the 
spending. Who do you think can do a better job of making decisions on 
how to spend money on our children, a Federal bureaucrat in Washington 
or the family of that child? We say leave the money with the family 
that earned it. They will make smarter decisions about what to spend on 
that child.
  So, Mr. President, my point is this: There is more to this than just 
the pure economics of it, than the dollars and cents of it. That is 
critical. It is very important. But there is more to it than that. It 
is fundamentally what our society is all about. We are trying to reduce 
the power, the authority, the intrusiveness of the Federal Government 
into our lives.
  We are trying to restore power to the States and local governments 
and to the families. One way we do that is by giving the Federal 
Government less money to spend and by limiting the growth in that 
spending to the revenues that we take in.
  The other way we do it is by not just limiting how much money the 
Federal Government takes in, but by actually reducing it through 
selected tax cuts. I think it is very important, as the House of 
Representatives will do in the next 3 days, as they will pass these 
reductions in taxes, it is very important for the U.S. Senate to follow 
suit, to follow what the House of Representatives does. We do not 
necessarily have to cut exactly the same taxes and the same amount. But 
it is important that we begin to put this Government on a diet, and the 
way to do that is begin to ratchet down the amount of money 
[[Page S5089]] that the Government takes from the workers of our 
Nation, from the families of our Nation, and leave that money with them 
to make the decisions on how best to spend it.
  Mr. President, Members of the freshman Republican class are going to 
be conducting these conversations every week throughout this entire 
year, I suspect even beyond that, to try to make the point that we just 
heard from the voters out there, we heard what was on their minds. We 
listened, and I am still hearing the same thing: They want us to reduce 
the power and the size and the expense of the Federal Government. And 
we freshmen Republicans are committed to that.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota brings that 
message from the recent election as well.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
                          the deficit lockbox

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to dispell a misconception 
that has become popular in Washington--the idea that tax cuts cannot go 
hand in hand with deficit reduction.
  There are some who suggest that the massive deficit we have today is 
due to the tax-cutting policies of the 1980's.
  What they ignore is the fact that during the 1980's, the number of 
jobs increased, the amount of taxable income increased, and as a 
result, tax revenues increased--all due to the Reagan tax cuts.
  What did not happen were the spending cuts promised by Congress but 
never delivered.
  In fact, spending during the 1980's increased significantly more than 
the increase in revenue, leading directly to the deficit we face today.
  This year we are on the verge of making the same mistake, but in the 
opposite direction.
  This time, Congress may pass spending cuts without providing the tax 
relief we promised the American people.
  One of the worst ideas I have heard during the budget debate, and 
frankly, it came from a member of my own party, was the idea of a 
deficit lockbox to stall enactment of the $500 per-child tax credit.
  Under the lockbox proposal, the tax cuts promised by Congress would 
be repealed if Congress fails to meet specific deficit targets.
  In other words, if Congress were to act as irresponsibly in the 
future as it has in the past, Congress would not suffer the 
consequences, Washington would not suffer the consequences.
  The taxpayer would.
  Even now, our colleagues in the House have come up with a compromise 
to tie tax cuts to deficit reduction. If the deficit targets are not 
met, the tax cuts are not delivered. But is it not just like Congress 
to think that way?
  If we were not in a collegial body, I would say the idea was just 
plain stupid. Instead, let me just label it misguided.
  Mr. President, we cannot compromise the taxpayers of this country or 
the future of their children.
  Instead of a deficit lockbox involving tax cuts, what we should have 
is the automatic spending reduction mechanism Senator Coats and I have 
proposed in our Families First bill.
  Under our legislation, if Congress fails to keep the growth of 
spending capped at 2 percent each year, an automatic, across-the-board 
sequester, excluding Social Security, would take effect.
  In other words, every spending program would be held to a growth rate 
of 2 percent.
  That way, Congress would have to pay the price for its own failings. 
Congress would have to explain to the taxpayers why they couldn't make 
the tough choices to slow the rate of growth of spending in order to 
balance the budget.
  It is clear, Mr. President, that deficit reduction must be a top 
priority of this Congress.
  But it is also clear that tax relief is equally urgent. And while 
there are some in this Chamber who say the two cannot go hand in hand--
I say the two must go hand in hand. We cannot allow the opponents of 
middle-class tax relief to pit one against the other.
  Mr. President, I am reminded of the animal trainer who walks into the 
lion cage.
  There is a lion to the left of him and a tiger to the right. Both are 
ready to devour him if he makes a wrong move.
  Do you believe for one instant that the lion-tamer will be foolish 
enough to focus his attention on either animal, while completely 
ignoring the other?
  Like the lion-tamer, Congress is facing a pair of equally dangerous 
beasts.
  In one corner looms the Federal deficit, in the other sits the 
oppressive tax burden American families are being asked to bear.
  We cannot ignore one at the expense of the other. They both need to 
be dealt with before they overpower us and eat this Nation alive.
  The mandate of the November election is clear, and the people are 
demanding change.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Tennessee.


                       Need for a Balanced Budget

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to continue the discussions of 
my distinguished Senators and fellow Republican freshmen from 
Minnesota, Arizona, and Wyoming.
  Our discussion this morning is on the balancing of our Nation's 
budget. And, again, coming off the campaign trail, coming to this 
distinguished body, I believe that there is no more pressing issue than 
balancing the budget before this Congress. Along with my 10 other 
fellow Republican freshmen Senators and over 70 freshmen Republican 
Members of the House, I was elected with a simple mandate: to restore 
fiscal sanity to the Federal Government.
  If this Congress today does not take steps to change the profligate 
spending habits of the Federal Government, the Members of this 
Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, will be to blame for leaving 
an enormous mountain of debt to be paid by our children, the next 
generation, and future generations of Americans.
  Mr. President, we simply cannot continue the current trend of Federal 
spending. Already the Federal debt is fast approaching $5 trillion. A 
family of four currently pays $440 per month in taxes just to pay the 
interest on our national debt. For the long term, the statistics are 
astounding. By the year 2000, just 5 years away, the Federal debt will 
exceed $6.7 trillion. This trend creates a debt of $25,000 for every 
man, woman, and child in America. That is a debt burden of $100,000 for 
every family in this country, a debt burden created by this body over 
the past several decades.
  Speaker Gingrich noted recently that a child born today will pay 
$187,000 in interest on the Federal debt during his or her lifetime, if 
current spending continues unchecked.
  Mr. President, as shown in this chart behind me, all Federal revenues 
will be consumed by entitlement spending in less than 15 years. This is 
1970, 1990, the year 2000, the year 2010, 15 years from now. The 
greenline here are total revenues brought in. Expenditures are the 
column, the red being entitlement spending, the yellow net interest and 
the blue discretionary spending, like defense, education, and 
infrastructure. By 2010, all revenues will be spent for entitlement 
spending, as well as net interest with no money left over for things 
like defense, education, support of our infrastructure unless we do 
something about it today.
  Every group interested in deficit reduction today, from the Concord 
Coalition to the Kerrey-Danforth entitlement commission has recognized 
that the long-term health of the Federal budget depends on the ability 
of this Congress to restrain growth of Federal programs. In fact, the 
board of trustees of the Medicare trust fund will come out today with 
an annual report. It says that the Medicare Program is predicted to be 
bankrupt in 7 years. At the beginning of fiscal year 1997, the Medicare 
trust fund will begin to run a cash-flow deficit. Medicare is just one 
of the many Federal programs that must be restructured, be improved, 
restructured by allowing more choice for seniors in order to achieve 
long-term viability.
  But, Mr. President, there are powerful interests that have already 
begun to resist even initial efforts to curb Federal spending. 
Defenders of the status quo would have us believe that there is no 
waste in Federal programs, that all of our Federal programs are 
[[Page S5090]] run efficiently, that there is no room to trim back this 
mammoth Federal bureaucracy. Yet, a Florida task force recently 
uncovered more than $100 million in Medicare and Medicaid fraud and 
abuse, according to the Health Care Financing Administration.
  Opponents of spending reform argue that we must spend more and not 
less, out of compassion. Mr. President, where is the compassion for the 
children of the next generation? The debate about Federal spending is 
more than a debate about cold budget numbers. It is a debate about 
restoring the American dream for future generations, making that 
American dream a reality for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I wonder what the opponents of Federal spending reform 
will tell their grandchildren when they are paying lifetime income tax 
rates of 84 percent to pay off the debt we created, when they cannot 
afford college tuition or a mortgage on their first home. Will it past 
muster to say we just could not find a way to reduce the growth?
  To reduce the growth, we are not talking about cutting spending in 
the sense that an American family today thinks of cutting spending. 
People in Washington engage in what I call Congress-speak. In Congress-
speak, cutting spending means letting a program grow at 4 instead of 5 
percent. If you told an American family today that they could spend 4 
percent more next year than this year, they would think they are doing 
pretty well. Not here. Not in Congress. The liberals in Congress 
shamelessly oppose such reforms, leaving the public to believe that 
Government services will be drastically reduced. In reality, all of the 
hue and cry is not about compassion for the poor or children, but 
instead about a desperate attempt to maintain the Federal bureaucracy.
  Mr. President, by the outcry in Washington over even modest savings 
proposals, you would think the Federal Government is about to pack up 
and go home. Far from it. The Federal Government will spend 
approximately $9 trillion over the next 5 years. To get a balanced 
budget by the year 2002, we must save $385 billion in mandatory 
spending. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has called the task 
of balancing the Federal budget a modest restructuring. While the job 
of balancing the Federal budget will be difficult, by no means will it 
result in drastic reductions in Government services or benefits. I 
believe Americans are ready to tighten their belts, so long as our plan 
is fair and balanced.
  Yes, it disturbs me that the President has not joined Republicans in 
the task of achieving a balanced Federal budget. As shown in this chart 
which depicts Federal budget deficits, the Clinton plan is in red 
versus the Republican budget here, which comes down to be balanced in 
the year 2002. We see that the Clinton budget throws up its hands and 
says that the budget cannot be balanced, keeping $200 billion deficits 
over the next 5 years. The Republican plan, in contrast, balances the 
budget in the year 2002.
  The President's advisers are trying to put an effective spin on the 
fact that they have thrown up their hands on any attempt to balance 
this budget, and they say that the stable deficits over the next 5 
years will remain at $200 billion with a deficit declining to 2.1 
percent of the gross domestic product by the next century. But even 
those modest claims have been refuted.
  The Congressional Budget Office took a look at the President's budget 
and found that the President had understated the deficit by 
approximately $209 billion over 5 years. The CBO also found the deficit 
as a percentage of gross domestic product, the administration's 
favorite measure will actually increase from 2.5 to 3.1 percent. The 
President has completely abdicated his duty to lead on fiscal issues.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me say a word about economic growth. Not 
only do we have a moral obligation to reduce the Federal deficit, but 
from an economic perspective, we simply must reduce the amount of 
Government borrowing in order to free up capital for productive 
investment in the private sector.
  No Government program can substitute for economic growth led by 
entrepreneurs, small businessowners, and other risk takers.
  Our economy will make room for everyone, but we must unleash 
America's capital for investment and put a stop to massive Government 
borrowing.
  In closing, we should remember what this debate is all about. It is 
about the moral imperative to pay off a debt we created. It is about 
the responsibility we have to the children of future generations. It is 
about increasing economic growth and access to capital. And it is about 
the strength of our system to survive.
  If we cannot stand up to those who would oppose real reform, then our 
very democracy is threatened.
  I thank the Chair, and I would like to yield to my distinguished 
colleague from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me first congratulate my colleague 
from Tennessee for his description of the problem that we face.
  I think it is appropriate and significant that this week, the 11 new 
Members of this body are coming to the floor to talk about really the 
most important problem facing our country; that is, our inability to 
deal with our budget deficit.
  This week, Mr. President, there is going to be a lot of discussion 
about the close of the first 100 days of this Congress. There will be 
talk about the Contract With America.
  I think that, by and large, the American people are pleased with what 
they have seen. We have begun to make progress; we have a way to go. We 
have passed in this body the line-item veto. We failed by one vote to 
pass a balanced budget amendment, but I am hopeful, as I know many of 
my colleagues are and as the majority leader is, that we will get that 
one additional vote and that we will be able to come back on this floor 
and pass that balanced budget amendment.
  We passed the unfunded mandate bill which, for the first time, will 
really hold Congress accountable for unfunded mandates that are passed 
down to the local communities with no money, but just telling the 
communities what to do.
  With unfunded mandates, line-item veto, making Congress live by the 
same laws that everyone else has to live under, I think we have made 
progress. We have a way to go.
  Quite frankly, Mr. President, I believe the tough votes are ahead of 
the Senate, not behind the Senate. I believe that this Congress really 
should be looked at in two different sections. The first part of the 
Congress deals with the items we have just talked about. Then we will 
move in--and frankly we have already begun to do this with different 
committees--the Budget Committee particularly--to the hardest and most 
difficult task that we have; that is, to do something that we have not 
done for a quarter of a century. That is to get ahold of Federal 
spending and bring it under control.
  I think the American people should understand that this week, while 
the focus is on the first 100 days, we now must turn to where we go 
from here. Mr. President, it is not going to be easy.
  Over the next few months, the U.S. Senate and this Congress is going 
to face some very, very tough choices. This Congress must do what prior 
Congresses have not done. We have to write a realistic budget for the 
U.S. Government. All Americans must be prepared for what lies ahead. 
Mr. President, this will not be pretty. It will not be easy.
  Indeed, the votes we have cast so far in this body are very easy 
compared to what lies ahead. We have to begin, Mr. President, by being 
absolutely candid and honest with the American people about the tough 
choices that lie ahead.
  We can no longer postpone the day of reckoning. The day of reckoning, 
Mr. President, is here. The current direction of U.S. budget policy is 
simply not sustainable.
  Congress has already amassed a $4.7 trillion national debt that our 
children and grandchildren will have to pay. That is what the American 
people in the past election voted to change. The people of this country 
demand change because they know what is going to happen if we do not 
change.
  Mr. President, we are already paying over $235 billion a year just in 
interest on the national debt. By the year 2003, just 8 years from now, 
spending on entitlements and interest alone will exceed 70 percent of 
the entire Federal budget.
  [[Page S5091]] If we take out defense, we leave just 15 percent of 
the budget for all the discretionary spending on our domestic needs. 
That is 15 percent of the whole budget--15 percent, Mr. President, for 
education; job training; for the Women, Infants, and Children Program; 
just 15 percent of all these domestic needs. That is, if we just stay 
on our present course.
  It does not get any better after the year 2003. In fact, it gets 
worse. By the year 2012, just 17 years from today, there will be 
nothing left in the budget for these social needs--zero. No money for 
our children, no money for our future--everything consumed. Every last 
red cent of the Federal budget will go to entitlements and interest 
payments.
  Mr. President, Congress' fiscal insanity has had a terrible human 
cost. The year 2012, the year the money is scheduled to run out if we 
do not change our ways, is 1 year after my wife, Fran, and I expect our 
grandson, Albert, to graduate from high school, and 1 year after our 
daughter, Anna, should enter college.
  Mr. President, if we do not succeed in writing a sensible budget, a 
budget that leads toward balance instead of further and further into 
bankruptcy, I shudder to think of the America we are going to leave 
these children.
  Another way of looking at it, when my parents graduated from high 
school in the early 1940's, the debt attributable to each child 
graduating from high school that year was $360. By the time my wife, 
Fran, and I graduated, in the mid-1960's, that figure was up to $1,600 
for each child. When our older children, Patrick, Jill, and Becky, 
graduated in the mid-to-late 1980's, that figure was up to $9,000. If 
we continue, Mr. President, to go the way we have been going, by the 
time our grandson, Albert, graduates from high school in the year 2012, 
that figure will be up to almost $25,000. That is $25,000 in debt, and 
no money at all to pay for urgent national needs.
  Mr. President, this is much more than simply a budget question. It is 
much more than a question of accounting and bookkeeping. I believe, Mr. 
President, it is a fundamental moral question about the kind of people 
we are, the kind of Americans we are.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I contend that we do not have the right 
to leave our children a bankrupt America. They deserve a lot better. 
That is why we are here on the floor today.
  It is our challenge over the coming weeks to create another picture 
of America, another picture of America in the year 2012, an America 
with a balanced budget, an America that is gradually paying off its 
debt and coming back to fiscal sanity, an America in which Albert, 
Anna, and other children of their generation are liberated from the 
crushing burden of debt and have, finally, the freedom to cope with the 
challenges of the 21st century. That is what, Mr. President, the coming 
debate is all about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from South Dakota or his designee is recognized to speak for up 
to 30 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr.. DORGAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 663 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________