[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 173 (Friday, November 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16691-S16695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last Friday, in the early hours following 
midnight, the Senate passed S. 1357, the Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1995. Here it is; it is 1,949 pages. The passage of that bill was not 
one of the Senate's finest hours. It was the latest, and perhaps the 
most striking, example to date of the misuse of the Budget Act's 
reconciliation process to ram through the Senate a 1,949-page 
monstrosity--there it is--a gigantic monstrosity, which will 
permanently change a vast number of statutes in ways that no Senator 
can possibly understand.
  The fast-track reconciliation procedures that were established in the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 were never intended to be used as a 
method to enact omnibus legislative changes under expedited, non-
filibusterable procedures. I know, because I helped to write the 
Congressional Budget Act in 1974, and it was never in my contemplation 
that the reconciliation legislation would be used in this fashion and 
for these purposes--never! I would not have supported it; I would have 
voted against it.
  As a matter of fact, I would have left some loopholes in that 
legislation, which would have saved us, and which would continue to 
save us from stultifying ourselves by using such procedures to pass 
legislation which otherwise would be debated at great length, amended 
many times, and assure the American people that their representatives 
here knew what they were doing when they passed the legislation. So it 
was never intended to be used in that fashion. Yet, that is what has 
occurred under the reconciliation process.
  Beginning in 1981, the Senate Budget Committee has piled together 
whatever changes the authorizing committees have recommended, and that 
is in accordance with the law. The Budget Committee has to do that. It 
has no alternative. It has no recourse. It cannot amend, substantively, 
measures that come to it from the authorizing committees. And the 
Budget Committee then must present this package to the Senate in the 
form of a reconciliation bill, often with little regard as to 

[[Page S 16692]]
whether there was any deficit reduction purpose for such provisions, as 
was intended by the 1974 Budget Act.
  The temptation to get such extraneous provisions into reconciliation 
acts is almost irresistible because of the fact that reconciliation 
bills, as I say, cannot be filibustered, opportunities to amend 
reconciliation bills are extremely limited, and the time for 
consideration of the measure is super extremely tight.
  That was the reason for my amendment to the Budget Act in 1985. In 
offering what is commonly called the ``Byrd Rule''--I have noted that 
in the press it was referred to as the ``so-called'' Byrd Rule. I do 
not know what the press means by the ``so-called'' Byrd Rule. It is the 
Byrd Rule. My purpose was to curb this tendency to throw everything, 
including the kitchen sink, into reconciliation acts.
  Now, the Byrd Rule has proved its efficacy. It might well be compared 
to Cerberus, which was--as referred to by Hesiod, the Greek epic poet, 
who lived in the 8th century B.C.--a hydra-headed dog that had three 
heads, according to Hesiod, and it guarded the entry into the infernal 
regions. That is what the Byrd Rule does. It may be termed a ``hydra-
headed'' piece of work, but it guards the entry into the regions of 
legislation, the entry of extraneous matter--Cerberus. Since its 
adoption, the Byrd Rule has had some success--considerable success, I 
would say--in removing extraneous matter from reconciliation bills.
  In this year's reconciliation bill, for example, the Democratic staff 
of the Budget Committee identified almost 250 provisions in the 
reconciliation bill, as reported by the Budget Committee which were, in 
their view, violations of the Byrd Rule. The list prepared by the 
Republican staff totaled almost 200 Byrd Rule violations. So it is 
obvious that Senators are going to continue to attempt to use the 
reconciliation bill as a vehicle to which they hope to attach their 
favorite legislative programs and provisions, whether such provisions 
are extraneous or not.
  Mr. President, I have here at the desk--and I have already shown it 
once to the viewers--the Senate reconciliation bill, S. 1357. It 
consists of two volumes and a total of 1,949 pages.
  Now, Senators received these two volumes--these 1,949 pages--on 
Wednesday of last week. They showed up on our desks on Wednesday. That 
was the same day that the 20-hour clock started ticking on this 
reconciliation bill. Debate is limited to 20 hours on the 
reconciliation bill. Can you imagine? Twenty hours on these two 
volumes, 1,949 pages!
  The bills just appeared the same day. A motion to proceed to take up 
that bill was not debatable, and so when the motion was made, the bill 
was ipso facto immediately before the Senate, and the clock was 
running.
  I would hope that the American people who are viewing what I am 
saying here through that camera can put themselves into the shoes of 
those of us who are elected by those people to represent them in this 
great legislative Chamber.
  People expect out there, expect us to know what we are doing. Passing 
the reconciliation bill was like playing blind man's bluff at a blind 
man's ball.
  Imagine walking around here with a handkerchief around one's head and 
over one's eyes, voting blind. It cannot be aptly described in any 
lesser fashion. Not one Senator--not one--and there are some pretty 
bright Senators in this body, excepting myself--not one Senator really 
knew what he was voting on when he voted for that bill.
  No committee held hearings on this bill. Several committees held some 
hearings on portions of it but no committee held hearings on the whole 
bill. There was no committee report, nothing by which we might be 
guided, except our own staffs. They were hit with the same problem at 
the same time.
  Yet, we only had 20 hours on which to act on the bill. Everything 
counted against that 20 hours except, say, the reading of amendments, 
the time that was consumed on rollcalls, the time consumed on some 
quorum calls, and the time consumed by the Chair in response to 
parliamentary inquiries and so on.
  That was an impossible--impossible--assignment. When the Senate 
completed action on its version, the 1,949 pages, it was only partly 
done with its work because the conference will now take place between 
the two Houses on the two differing versions of the reconciliation 
bill.
  I now hold in my hand the House version. This is the House version of 
the reconciliation bill as passed by the House and sent to the Senate--
two volumes, 1,839 pages. The House did its work, in less time. The 
House only had 6 hours!
  That is beyond my imagination or comprehension, really, that a body 
of 435 persons could work its will in a knowledgeable, knowing, wise 
way in 6 hours on a bill consisting of 1,839 pages--that was 110 pages 
less than we saw on the Senate bill. That is the House bill.
  Now, when the Senate completed its work, it ended up with a bill 
consisting of 1,862 pages--two volumes. So when the House and Senate 
conferees go to conference, this is what they have to contend with--
these four volumes I hold in my hands. They are supposed to resolve the 
differences between the two Houses on the separate versions of the bill 
as passed by both Houses.
  When the conference is completed, the conference report will come 
before the Senate under a time limitation of 10 hours--10 hours. We are 
going to get this thing back! We are going to get the conference report 
on this Leviathan. The conference report, we will have all of 10 hours 
to debate that.
  There will surely be a number of brand-new items and provisions that 
will be included in the conference report which have not yet been 
considered by the Senate. Yet, as I say, Senators will have only 10 
hours to debate that conference report and amend it--if there is an 
opportunity to amend, if there are amendments in disagreement.
  The 20-hour cap on reconciliation bill and 10-hour cap on conference 
reports to reconciliation bills is simply woefully inadequate for 
Senators to carefully examine these massive, nearly 2,000-page 
reconciliation bills and to offer and debate their amendments.
  So that is why I offered an amendment during the debate on this 
reconciliation bill to extend the 20-hour cap to 50 hours on 
reconciliation bills and to extend the 10-hours to 20 hours on 
reconciliation conference report.
  Do you know what happened? My amendment died on what was almost a 
party-line vote. One Republican, I believe, the able Senator from 
Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], voted to extend this time.
  Mr. President, the lack of time allowed for Senate debate on 
reconciliation bills, means in fact that extremely narrow and often 
very unwise provisions can be easily hidden in these huge 
reconciliation packages. This year's bill for example appears to be 
very close to a repeat of Reaganomics. What do I mean by that? Massive 
tax cuts for the wealthy, together with a huge military build-up, paid 
for by devastation in public investments for transportation, education, 
and research, and by steep cuts in medicare.
  During the campaign for the Republican nomination in 1980, candidate 
Bush had said that the Reagan revolution was based on ``voo-doo'' 
economics. And, we should not forget the warning of Majority Leader 
Howard Baker that the 1981 Reagan tax cut amounted to a ``river boat 
gamble.''
  Mr. President, we lost that gamble.
  The Nation is still paying the price for that ``river boat gamble'' 
in terms of the national debt and the interest on it that was run up 
during President Reagan's eight years. On the day that Mr. Reagan took 
office, the national debt stood at $932 billion. It took the Nation 192 
years and 38 different Presidents (39 different administrations) to 
reach a debt of $932 billion. Yet, on January 20, 1989, the day that 
Mr. Reagan left office, the national debt was $2.683 trillion.
  Mr. President, how much is $1 trillion? How long would it take to 
count $1 trillion, at the rate of $1 per second? Would it surprise you 
to know that it would take 32,000 years to count $1 trillion at the 
rate of $1 per second?
  So, the national debt had mushroomed like the prophet's gourd, 
overnight, to $2.683 trillion.
  In other words, after the eight years of the Reagan Presidency, the 
budget was not balanced, as he had promised. Instead, the ``river boat 
gamble'' had left us with an 8-year string of record breaking deficits 
and a resulting increase in the national debt of $1.751 

[[Page S 16693]]
trillion. Yet, we, supposedly intelligent men and women, have embraced 
that same failed economic theory all over again in this reconciliation 
bill that we just recently passed. Reaganomics was a disastrous policy 
and it is unbelievable that our learning curve is so flat.
  I have been reading about the poor performance of American students 
in history, American history, and many other subjects, for that matter. 
I noted just a day or so ago in the newspapers--and I can believe some 
of what I read in them--that the performance of American students in 
American history classes is dismally poor--dismally poor. That is not 
to be compared with our own performance, which is much worse. It is 
unbelievable that our learning curve is so flat, so flat that in 
passing that reconciliation bill we would do it all over again. Do what 
all over again? Embrace the same failed economic policies that failed 
during the administration of Mr. Reagan. But that is exactly what has 
happened.
  We have dusted off old, tired, discredited Reaganomics, rechristened 
it a ``Contract With America'' and slammed-dunked it into law through 
this crazy, crazy, convoluted process called Reconciliation. The so-
called Contract With America.
  Mr. President, among the 1,949 pages of that reconciliation bill, 
there appeared provisions calling for $245 billion in tax cuts over the 
next 7 years--$245 billion in reduced Federal revenues at the same time 
that we are trying to balance the budget.
  I hear this blather in here practically every morning on the Senate 
floor by a few Senators who think the reconciliation bill was something 
akin to the Second Coming. We have reached the millennium, to hear them 
talk about it. They talk about how great this reconciliation bill was, 
how we have balanced the budget, and how we have lifted the burden off 
our children and grandchildren because we have balanced the budget with 
this reconciliation bill--they say.
  Aristotle said of Callisthenes, ``He is eloquent indeed, but he wants 
common sense.''
  So that is the way it is. We hear a great many eloquent speeches 
about what a tremendous step we have taken in lifting the burden off 
the backs of our children and grandchildren by passing this 
reconciliation bill. We will have balanced the budget in 7 years. But 
at the same time, out of the same mouths, we hear that we have also cut 
the taxes, cut taxes for the American people to the tune of $245 
billion. How can you do both? How can we possibly balance the budget on 
the one hand in 7 years, and on the other, hand out $245 billion in tax 
cuts? It does not make sense!
  I sometimes hear the Senate referred to as the Cave of the Winds--
pretty aptly named. The world record for wind speed was 231 miles per 
hour, and it was recorded on April 12, 1934, the year in which I 
graduated from high school, 1934. That is the world's record for wind 
speed, 231 miles per hour. It was recorded on Mount Washington in the 
State of New Hampshire.
  I know of no recording of the wind speed that we experience in this 
Chamber, but I daresay that climbers, who are on their way to the 
Himalayas and the Antarctic, would do very well to get some training in 
this Chamber because they would be acting under similar conditions as 
to wind speeds. To listen to these eloquent speeches about how much we 
have done for the American people and for our children and 
grandchildren in passing the monstrosity that no Senator--no Senator, 
none, not one--knows the alpha and the omega of what he did or she did 
in passing that legislation--is a joke, but not a funny one.
  The perpetrators of this fiscal irresponsibility tell us that they 
can balance the budget and reduce taxes in 7 years. That is one of the 
mistakes that President Clinton also made in coming out for a tax cut. 
No, he was not going to cut the taxes $245 billion, but he was still 
proposing to cut the taxes--$63 billion over 5 years. That is folly! 
Folly, to think of cutting the taxes under these conditions--by gutting 
Medicare, by raising our Nation's domestic discretionary investments, 
and by spending so-called fiscal dividends, dividends that do not even 
exist, dividends that do not yet exist and may never exist.
  We have seen the CBO err many times in the past in its projections as 
to future deficits. And over a period of 15 years--over a period of 15 
years--it was in error on the average of $45 billion annually. It was 
off in its estimates of the deficits on the average of $45 billion a 
year. So we cannot believe, on the basis of CBO's projections, that the 
budget will be balanced in 7 years. And just one recession will knock 
those projections into a cocked hat. There will not be any dividend. 
But the tax cut will have been put in place.

  Our Republican colleagues have found a way to claim that they have 
balanced the budget in 7 years, and provided a $245 billion tax cut--at 
least on paper. In reality, Mr. President, we do not know what the next 
7 years will bring. And we ought to admit that right up front to the 
American people. We do not know. Nobody knows what the interest rates 
will be, what the unemployment rate will be, what the rate of growth 
will be, what the inflation rate will be. Nobody knows. Only God knows. 
And there is nobody around here who can claim to be God.
  We ought to admit that right up front to the American people. We 
certainly cannot know for sure--despite the imprimatur of the 
Congressional Budget Office--that a $170 billion fiscal dividend will 
rise from the dust like the phoenix from the ashes, from the dust of 
this budgetary demolition. All we can be sure of is that, if this 
reconciliation bill ever becomes law, there will be a $245 billion tax 
cut--right up front. You can hang your hat on that. Not many people 
wear hats anymore. But if you have one, you can hang it on that. There 
will be a $245 billion tax cut for the well-to-do. That is all we can 
say for sure right now in October 1995.
  Mr. President, I cannot claim to know for certain the intentions of 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who promulgated this 
imprudent tax cut. But I can intuit what appear to be the roots of this 
fiscal irresponsibility. These roots were planted in the so-called 
``Contract With America.'' I did not sign on to it. I have never read 
it.
  This is my contract with America. I carry it in my shirt pocket. It 
cost 19 cents when I bought it at the Government Printing Office 
several years ago. It is the Constitution of the United States of 
America. I swore to abide by that Constitution. That is my contract 
with America! And I have sworn to uphold that contract, to support and 
defend that contract with America--13 times upon entering into office 
over the past 49 years. That is my contract with America. I did not 
swear on to the impostor, the so-called ``Contract With America.'' My 
people did not ask me to support the ``Contract With America'' when 
they elected me last year. I did not get any mandate to support the so-
called ``Contract With America.''
  The roots of the imprudent tax cut were planted in the so-called 
``Contract With America''--the legislative promissory note used by 
Members of the other body to ride the tide of voter hostility to power. 
In fact, many of the numerous tax breaks--such as the ever-popular $500 
child credit and the capital gains tax reduction--came directly from 
that document, I am told, because I have not read it. I have read in 
the newspapers that it was created by the political pollsters for 
politicians running for office.
  I was a politician running for office last year. I did not read it.
  Now those same politicians are Members of Congress, with a 
responsibility above and beyond political paybacks. Yet, they continue 
to adhere to the ill-conceived doctrine that tax cuts are more 
important than balancing the budget. You see, the so-called ``Contract 
With America'' contained the promise of a balanced budget amendment. My 
colleagues in the Senate had the courage to defeat that constitutional 
hoax. And I am proud of it.
  I am not above amending the Constitution of the United States. 
Article 5 tells us how this Constitution, this contract with America, 
may be amended--in article V.
  So my colleagues in the Senate had the courage to defeat that 
constitutional hoax called a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget, and I am proud of it. It is unfortunate that Senators did not 
find that same backbone to prevent these reckless tax cuts at a time 
when we are running a substantial fiscal deficit with nearly $4.9 
trillion in public debt outstanding.
  Let us all disabuse ourselves of the notion that tax cuts at this 
time are in 

[[Page S 16694]]
the best interests of the people of the United States of America. They 
are not. They are not in the best interests of the United States of 
America at this time.
  It is easy to vote for tax cuts. In my 49 years in public office and 
in voting for tax cuts, I have found from time to time that it is an 
easy thing to do. It does not require any courage to vote to cut taxes. 
I do not believe that tax cuts at this time are in the best interests 
of the people of the United States.
  They are fiscally irresponsible, akin to feeding chocolate to a 
diabetic, or like giving an alcoholic a case of bourbon for Christmas. 
We do the country no favor with this pandering. The voters will pay 
later with the toothaches of poor social and medical health services, 
declining public infrastructure, and the hangover of continuing huge 
budget deficits. And they are going to remember it.
  The time will come when they will remember the advocates of this so-
called ``Contract With America.'' They will remember those who 
advocated the tax cuts. That worm is going to turn! The only question 
is when.
  I am reminded of Croesus who was defeated by Cyrus the Great at the 
battle of Thymbra in 546 B.C. Cyrus the Great did not execute Croesus 
but, instead, he attached Croesus to his court as an adviser. Croesus 
was one of the richest men in the world, King of Lydia. But he was 
conquered by Cyrus. Cyrus sought to extend his dominions and to enlarge 
them. He had been very fortunate in numerous battles. And Cyrus sought 
to extend his dominions beyond the Caspian Sea.
  According to Herodotus, Cyrus prepared to launch a war against the 
Massagetae, whose ruler was a queen, Queen Tomyris. Before Cyrus 
crossed the river into the dominions of the Scythians, he called his 
generals about him, his wise men, and asked them for their advice.
  He finally asked Croesus for his opinion. Croesus said, ``You have 
been very fortunate in adding land to land and dominion to dominion, 
and in winning many battles. There is a wheel on which the affairs of 
men revolve, and its movement forbids the same man to be always 
fortunate.'' Cyrus invaded and lost the battle. He had been warned by 
this queen not to invade. She had said, ``Oh, Cyrus, you have been 
fortunate. You have added land to land, province to province, dominion 
to dominion, but don't invade my country. You control a vast empire. 
You don't need additional land. If you invade my country, I will give 
you your fill of blood.''

  There was a great battle and Cyrus was beaten. After the battle, she 
sent her men out on the field to look for Cyrus. He was dead. They 
brought Cyrus to her. She cut off his head. She had a bag of skin 
filled with human blood, and she thrust the head of Cyrus into that bag 
of blood, saying, ``You wanted your fill of blood. I promised you that 
I would give you your fill of human blood. I have kept my pledge!''
  So the wheel turns, as Croesus said, and this wheel, too, is going to 
turn. And those who are crowing about this great Contract With America 
and how they have balanced the budget with this monstrosity and how 
they are giving the American people their money back, a tax cut to the 
tune of $245 billion, how they are lifting the burden from the 
children's backs, they are going to eat those words. That is my guess. 
That is my opinion. The worm will turn. The wheel will turn.
  I have stated time and time again on this floor that I am opposed to 
any tax cuts at this time--I was led down that parlous path more than a 
decade ago. But if we in this body are going to approve tax cuts, as we 
have at this time, I wish all Members had looked a little closer at 
exactly what was imbedded in this mammoth legislation. Mr. President, a 
close look at the individual components of the Republican-proposed tax 
cuts brings to light some striking revelations. We must pay careful 
attention to a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that predicts that 
the tax ``cut'' provisions approved by the Senate Finance Committee 
will actually raise taxes for all taxpayers earning under $30,000 in 
the year 2000, and that this tax ``cut'' will result in a tax increase 
for nearly half of all American taxpayers in that same year. We must 
comprehend that, according to the same estimate by the Joint Committee 
on Taxation, those taxpayers earning over $200,000 in the year 2000 
will receive an average tax break of $1,500 that year. It is 
interesting, even that a large part of these so-called tax cuts would 
not help our most needy citizens at all, while those same Americans--
seniors and low- and middle-income working families--will bear the 
brunt of this reconciliation bill's spending restraints--the classic 
double whammy.
  Mr. President, this reconciliation bill is an abomination. It is a 
travesty. It is a bad joke.
  We just rubber stamped what was sent to the Senate by the Budget 
Committee. It was forced under the law to send to the Senate what was 
given to it by other committees in carrying out their instructions from 
the Senate. We voted for it. I did not, but the Senate adopted it--just 
blindfolded itself. Put the blindfold on. Rubber stamped it.
  It represents a serious breach of faith. We have played fast and 
loose with the livelihoods and the health care of the very people who 
sent us here. And I doubt, I just have to doubt that any Senator fully 
comprehends what was in this behemoth package.
  Some may claim that they knew full well what was in this package when 
they voted for it, but they did not really know. They did not know. 
Yet, whole sections of the House bill that came over here, the first 
House bill that came over here had whole sections of it missing on the 
day that we began the debate. We began the vote on this bill with no 
committee report, no explanatory statement to guide us and with only 20 
hours to consider this mountain of paper--this bill and the House bill, 
one with 1,949 pages and the other with 1,839 pages. That weighs more 
than my little dog Billy.
  The American people are angry, but as Mr. Reagan used to say, ``You 
ain't seen nothing yet.'' Wait until they find out, wait until they 
understand the hoax that has been played on them by the passage of that 
monstrosity.
  I know they are angry. Reportedly, they have had enough of ethics 
problems, enough of false promises, enough of Government meddling, and 
so on. They have every right to be mad, to use a colloquial expression, 
but I submit that they are mad about the wrong issues. They ought to be 
mad about what just happened on this floor last Friday, last Friday 
night past midnight when we passed that bill. They ought to be furious 
about the fast shuffle we just gave them on this Senate floor that 
night.
  If the people fully understood the blatant disregard for any 
semblance of responsible legislating--that is not responsible 
legislating--the callous dismissal of any attempt to actually represent 
their views or to act in their best interests, they would be out in the 
streets looking for us! They would be ready to vote an amendment to the 
Constitution saying that Members of the House and Senate could be sent 
to death by a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder sends one to death 
without a trial. If the people really understood just what went on 
here, they would storm this city and dismantle this Chamber brick by 
brick by brick!
  Yet, the supporters of this bill will gloriously claim that the 
revolution has come--long live the revolution! But, make no mistake 
about it, this is no grassroots revolution. It is, rather a revolution 
run by the elite. It has been accomplished by the politicians, behind 
closed doors, for the wealthy and the big contributors, and the 
important lobbyists. It is a revolution of the powerful by the powerful 
for the powerful. Tax breaks for football coaches--can you imagine 
that, tax breaks for football coaches--tax breaks for motorboat 
enthusiasts, special benefits for a Delaware Power and Light Company, 
special exemptions for newspaper companies, so that they won't have to 
pay unemployment or payroll taxes for certain employees, tax free 
conversion from trust funds to mutual funds, mineral rights give aways, 
large corporate farm loopholes which allow them to receive below-cost 
water, land sales for nuclear waste dumping, these were in the bill 
that came to the Senate floor. I do not know how many of them will 
remain in the bill--or remain in it now, as a matter of fact. I did not 
know what was in the bill when it passed. I voted against it. That was 
the best thing to do. If one does not know what is in a bill, he ought 
to vote against it. 

[[Page S 16695]]
 Do no harm. These are hardly provisions which benefit the beans and 
bacon crowd.

  No, no, this is strictly a caviar and champagne revolution! No 
ordinary commoners need apply.
  And it gets worse when one focuses on the fact that what I have just 
listed represents only the tip of the iceberg. It is only the small 
amount of information on special tax breaks which I so far have been 
able to glean regarding the blue-ribbon character of this very select 
revolution.
  So, the rich and the powerful and the oh so very comfortable will 
continue to sip their white wine and murmur ever so joyously about 
their exclusive little ``gimme gravy'' revolution. But, while this 
private tea party is going on in some circles, health care for the 
elderly has been slashed in order to foot the catering bill.
  So, mark this down as a time when the so-called ``world's greatest 
deliberative body,'' deliberated very little and produced nothing even 
close to ``great.'' We tinkered around the edges with amendments, when 
all the while most of us had no real idea of what was buried in the 
underlying bill and were provided with little time or opportunity to 
inform ourselves or to inform the American people about these far-
reaching changes.
  This reconciliation process has been twisted out of all recognizable 
shape. It has become the antithesis of solid thorough legislating, and 
it makes a mockery of minority rights and the tradition of extended 
debate here in the Senate.
  This Senator is fond of saying, ``Est deo gratia pro Senatus!'' 
``Thank God for the U.S. Senate.'' But, with regard to this sorry 
spectacle, I will have to alter my usual exclamation and say, ``Thank 
God for the Presidential veto,'' not the line-item veto, but the veto 
which the President is given in the Constitution of the United States--
the real contract with America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leaders' time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Leaders' time has been reserved.

                          ____________________